New Yorker, April 2015....Why was Bill Clinton taking any money from a bank linked to the Kremlin while his wife was Secretary of State? This post is about the New Yorker article, while I make some a couple notes relating to the FBI's appointed "MUH RUSSIA" spy embedded within the Trump campaign (which I'm just learning about) A Little over 6 months before FBI's Carter Page was finally made contact with the Trump campaign, the New Yorker article was asking some obvious questions, about Clinton/Russia and Uranium One... with a side note about " Rosatom’s alarmingly named subsidiary who purchased it, ARMZ". And less than 3 months prior to the New Yorker article, the case that Page had cooperated in helping the FBI to obtain surveillance makes this news: Jan. 23, 2015 – The U.S. government charges Podobnyy and two other Russian operatives for acting as unregistered agents of a foreign government, after it had broken up a Russian spy ring aimed at seeking information on U.S. sanctions. Federal prosecutors include the Russian intelligence effort to recruit Page as part of the government’s evidence. These clever FBI Clinton supporters, nothing fishy about Russia gets past them! https://www.newyorker.com/news/amy-davidson/five-questions-about-the-clintons-and-a-uranium-company  New Yorker did a good job of pointing out the Clinton Giustra Enterprise Partnership, both of them. Two legally separate but almost identically named entities: the Clinton Giustra Enterprise Partnership and the Clinton Giustra Enterprise Partnership (Canada).  The second one is a Canadian charitable vehicle that Giustra set up—doing it this way helps Canadian donors get tax benefits. It also, to the foundation’s mind, obliterates the disclosure requirements. (There are also limits on what a Canadian charity is allowed to disclose.)  “As complex as they may seem, these programs were set up to do philanthropic work with maximum impact, period. Critics will say what they want, but that doesn’t change the facts that these social enterprise programs are addressing poverty alleviation and other global challenges in innovative ways.” Minassian compared the Clinton Giustra Enterprise Partnership (Canada) to entirely independent nonprofits, like AmFAR or Malaria no More, which have their own donors and then give money to the foundation’s work. This does not make a lot of sense unless you have an instinct for the most legalistic of legalisms. Unlike AmFAR, the Clinton Giustra Enterprise Partnership (Canada) has the Clinton name on it. Money given to the Canadian entity goes exclusively to the foundation. Per an agency agreement, all of its work is done by the foundation, too. The Web site that has the C.G.E.P. name on it also has the Clinton Foundation logo and Bill Clinton’s picture; it also has a copyright notice naming the Canadian entity as the site’s owner. Anyone visiting the site would be justifiably confused. They are, in other words, effectively intermingled. And what would it mean if the Canadian explanation flew—that the Clintons could allow a foreign businessman to set up a foreign charity, bearing their name, through which people in other countries could make secret multi-million-dollar donations to their charity’s work? That structural opacity calls the Clintons’ claims about disclosure into question. If the memorandum of understanding indeed allowed for that, it was not as strong a document as the public was led to believe—it is precisely the sort of entanglement one would want to know about. (In that way, the Canadian charity presents some of the same transparency issues as a super PAC.) At the very least, it is a reckless use of the Clinton name, allowing others to trade on it.