This email has also been verified by Google DKIM 2048-bit RSA key

Fwd: Formal response from me

From:jp66@hillaryclinton.com To: john.podesta@gmail.com Date: 2015-04-23 13:41 Subject: Fwd: Formal response from me

---------- Forwarded message ---------- The memo we sent to NYT follows. Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: * ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Below is the campaign's official response to your inquiry. *MEMORANDUM* TO: Jo Becker and Mike McIntyre, New York Times FROM: Brian Fallon, Hillary for America DATE: April 22, 2015 RE: Response to story based on “Clinton Cash” The below memorandum presents our response to the questions you have posed in the course of your reporting on Peter Schweizer’s book, *Clinton Cash*. At the outset, it is important to note that no one – neither Mr. Schweizer, nor the *Times*, nor anyone else -- has ever produced a shred of evidence supporting the theory that Hillary Clinton ever took action as Secretary of State to support the interests of donors to the Clinton Foundation. Therefore, we are extremely disappointed that the *New York Times* intends to rely on research culled from a biased author like Mr. Schweizer. During our conversations with the *Times*, it has been unclear to what extent, if at all, the *Times*’ reporting goes beyond the allegations made in *Clinton Cash*. This is troubling because, as has been well documented already, the book’s author is a known Republican operative whose organization has links to the Koch brothers and a major donor to Ted Cruz. Moreover, the book’s rollout has been coordinated with another Republican presidential candidate, Rand Paul. It is worrisome that the Times would repeat the claims from such a questionable source. As we understand it, the crux of your story revolves around the allegations contained in the book’s third chapter, entitled “Hillary’s Reset.” This chapter attempts to trace a connection between Frank Giustra, a known philanthropist who has long partnered with the Clinton Foundation, and the U.S. government’s review of the proposed sale of a majority stake in Uranium One to a Russian-based company in 2010. To suggest the State Department, under then-Secretary Clinton, exerted undue influence in the U.S. government’s review of the sale of Uranium One is utterly baseless. It mischaracterizes the nature of the State Department’s participation in such reviews, and also ignores the range of other regulatory agencies that ultimately supported this sale. It is impossible to view this allegation as anything other than just another in the many partisan conspiracy theories advanced in the *Clinton Cash* book. To begin with, the fact of Mr. Giustra’s contributions to the Clinton Foundation is not new. In fact, the only reason his contributions are known to the book’s author is because the Foundation goes above and beyond what the law requires of nonprofit foundations in terms of disclosing its donors. With respect to the State Department, it is but one of nine agencies involved in the CFIUS process. While the details of CFIUS deliberations are classified, it is widely known that it is the Treasury Department that serves as the lead agency in the body’s reviews, and that the State Department very seldom serves in the role of “co-lead.” Moreover, decisions by CFIUS are made on the basis of consensus. This means that to the extent anyone were to claim that the Uranium One sale might have raised national security questions, agencies such as the Department of Homeland Security and Defense Department would have been party to the approval and could have elevated any concerns to the President if they had them. In light of these facts, it is completely misleading to suggest that the State Department was in a position to steer the approval of this deal. Apart from the fact that the State Department was one of just nine agencies involved in CFIUS, it is also true that within the State Department, the CFIUS approval process historically does not trigger the personal involvement of the Secretary of State. The State Department’s principal representative to CFIUS was the Assistant Secretary of State for Economic, Energy and Business Affairs. During the time period in question, that position was held by Jose Fernandez. As you are aware, Mr. Fernandez has personally attested that “Secretary Clinton never intervened with me on any CFIUS matter.” In addition, the deal in question was approved by a range of regulatory bodies beyond CFIUS. This includes the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the Utah Department of Radiation. On account of the target company being Canadian, that country’s regulators would also have had to approve the deal. They indeed did so. The widespread nature of the approval of this transaction stemmed in part from the concessions that Russia made in the course of the review process. Indeed, one of the conditions imposed by the U.S. regulators is that U.S. uranium assets could not be exported and had to be sold in the United States. Senator John Barrasso (R-WY) verified this arrangement and said it satisfied him. In our conversations, you have raised a possible contradiction in the fact that while CFIUS approved this particular transaction, it blocked a separate deal involving U.S. uranium assets sought by the Chinese government. This comparison is inaccurate. According to many press reports, the FirstGold investment was blocked because it was proximate to the Fallon Air Force Base, not because it involved uranium. The bottom line is that the State Department was but one in a multitude of agencies that participated in the review of this widely supported transaction, and there is no evidence that the Department deviated in any way from its normal process involving CFIUS reviews. In fact, as noted above, the Department’s principal representative to CFIUS at the time has confirmed that the Secretary never intervened with him in any CFIUS matter during his tenure there. Any allegations to the contrary are wholly unsubstantiated. -- JP jp66@hillaryclinton.com For scheduling: mfisher@hillaryclinton.com