About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

NBC's Mitchell reported on Clinton's NY meeting with Kazakh official, not that he reportedly rejected Kazakh proposal

February 01, 2008 8:47 pm ET

Trouble viewing clip? Download: QT | WMV

SUMMARY: As evidence that "some of [Bill Clinton's] connections could create ethical and diplomatic conflicts for his wife," Andrea Mitchell reported on Clinton's September 2005 trip to Kazakhstan with Canadian mining financier Frank Giustra, followed by his hosting "the head of Kazakhstan's uranium agency at their Chappaqua [New York] home." But Mitchell didn't report, as stated by The New York Times, that the Kazakh official failed to obtain Clinton's help in "lobby[ing]" in support of Kazakhstan's intention to buy a stake in a U.S. firm. Further, Mitchell reported Giustra's claim that "the uranium deal ... was substantially completed before" he and Bill Clinton "arrived in Kazakhstan without noting that Giustra has reportedly been involved in Kazakh mining deals at least as far back as the mid-1990s.

5 Comments

On the January 31 broadcast of NBC News' Nightly News with Brian Williams, NBC chief foreign affairs correspondent Andrea Mitchell reported on former President Bill Clinton's September 2005 trip to Kazakhstan with Canadian mining financier Frank Giustra, citing Newsweek and New York Times articles on the subject. Mitchell reported that "while he's [Bill Clinton] circling the globe doing good works and raising billions for his foundation, some of his connections could create ethical and diplomatic conflicts for his wife," Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY). As one piece of evidence, she reported that "even after she started running for president last year, her husband hosted Giustra and the head of Kazakhstan's uranium agency [Moukhtar Dzhakishev] at their Chappaqua [New York] home." However, Mitchell did not note that the New York Times article she cited said that Clinton told Dzhakishev "that he would not lobby" in support of "Kazakhstan's intention -- not publicly known at the time -- to buy a 10 percent stake in Westinghouse, a United States supplier of nuclear technology."

Regarding the meeting between Giustra, Dzhakishev, and former President Clinton at the Clintons' home, Mitchell reported on Nightly News:

MITCHELL: [A]mong [Kazakh President Nursultan] Nazarbayev's critics: Hillary Clinton, who along with other members of Congress sounded alarms about Kazakhstan's serious corruption in this letter to then-Secretary of State Colin Powell. Still, even after she started running for president last year, her husband hosted Giustra and the head of Kazakhstan's uranium agency at their Chappaqua home. A week later, the State Department condemned Kazakhstan in its annual human rights report for serious abuses and even petty censorship of the website for Borat, the satirical movie about Kazakhstan.

[...]

MITCHELL: Tonight, a spokesman for President Clinton points out that the Bush administration has hosted Kazakhstan's leader and that Clinton's praise for him was only pro forma, being polite.

And Clinton's friend Frank Giustra tells NBC News Bill Clinton did not play a role in the uranium deal, which he says was substantially completed before they arrived in Kazakhstan. And all involved deny any quid pro quo.

According to The New York Times, "Dzhakishev, the Kazatomprom chief, said he traveled to Chappaqua, N.Y. ... to discuss Kazakhstan's intention -- not publicly known at the time -- to buy a 10 percent stake in Westinghouse, a United States supplier of nuclear technology." The Times reported "Dzhakishev said Mr. Giustra arranged the three-hour meeting." But, the Times added that "Mr. Clinton told him that he would not lobby for him, but Mr. Dzhakishev came away pleased by the chance to promote his nation's proposal to a former president." From the Times:

In February 2007, a company called Uranium One agreed to pay $3.1 billion to acquire UrAsia. Mr. Giustra, a director and major shareholder in UrAsia, would be paid $7.05 per share for a company that just two years earlier was trading at 10 cents per share.

That same month, Mr. Dzhakishev, the Kazatomprom chief, said he traveled to Chappaqua, N.Y., to meet with Mr. Clinton at his home. Mr. Dzhakishev said Mr. Giustra arranged the three-hour meeting. Mr. Dzhakishev said he wanted to discuss Kazakhstan's intention -- not publicly known at the time -- to buy a 10 percent stake in Westinghouse, a United States supplier of nuclear technology.

Nearly a year earlier, Mr. Clinton had advised Dubai on how to handle the political furor after one of that nation's companies attempted to take over several American ports. Mrs. Clinton was among those on Capitol Hill who raised the national security concerns that helped kill the deal.

Mr. Dzhakishev said he was worried the proposed Westinghouse investment could face similar objections. Mr. Clinton told him that he would not lobby for him, but Mr. Dzhakishev came away pleased by the chance to promote his nation's proposal to a former president.

Further, on Nightly News, Mitchell reported that "Clinton did not play a role in the uranium deal, which he says was substantially completed before they arrived in Kazakhstan. And all involved deny any quid pro quo." Similarly, during a report on the February 1 edition of Morning Joe on the Kazakhstan trip, Mitchell stated that "[n]o quid pro quo has been alleged. Nothing wrong with either the contract or what Bill Clinton did." But at no point in either report did Mitchell note that Giustra was reportedly involved in Kazakh mining deals at least as far back as the mid-1990s, a fact that lends support to Giustra's reported statement that he had a "substantially completed" deal before the trip.

Additionally, during her Morning Joe report, Mitchell omitted the reported stated purpose of former President Clinton and Giustra's trip to Kazakhstan. From Morning Joe:

MITCHELL: He went with a very good friend and contributor, Frank Giustra, a Canadian tycoon, to Kazakhstan and praised the leader there, who's a very controversial dictator there, and two days later, Mr. Giustra gets a commitment for three uranium contracts for the Kazakhstan state-owned mines. This was very much sought after. A few months later, he makes a contribution of $31 million to the Clinton Foundation and, later, a pledge for $100 million more. No quid pro quo has been alleged. Nothing wrong with either the contract or what Bill Clinton did.

Mitchell did not report, however, that, according to The New York Times, "[t]he publicly stated reason for the visit was to announce a Clinton Foundation agreement that enabled the government to buy discounted AIDS drugs." By contrast, in her Nightly News report, Mitchell stated: "In September 2005, Bill Clinton went there with Canadian tycoon Frank Giustra on his private jet, they say, to inspect AIDS projects."

From the January 31 edition of NBC's Nightly News:

BRIAN WILLIAMS (anchor): And now to the Democrats. Clinton and [Barack] Obama are debating tonight. But it was the other Clinton, the former president, who was today the target of a newspaper story about his potentially tricky business connections. Our report from NBC's Andrea Mitchell.

MITCHELL: She says if she became president, he would be her goodwill ambassador. He says he would still raise money for his foundation. But while he's circling the globe doing good works and raising billions for his foundation, some of his connections could create ethical and diplomatic conflicts for his wife. Like Kazakhstan. In September 2005, Bill Clinton went there with Canadian tycoon Frank Giustra on his private jet, they say, to inspect AIDS projects.

GIUSTRA: We spent many hours flying around the world, many long flights, and gave us an opportunity to chat on a variety of topics.

MITCHELL: But while there, as first reported by Newsweek and The New York Times, Clinton praised the country's widely criticized dictator, Nursultan Nazarbayev. Only days later, Clinton's friend won three uranium deals with Nazarbayev's state-run mines worth tens of millions of dollars. Months later, Giustra donated $31 million to Clinton's foundation. Since then he's pledged $100 million more. Critics say praise from Bill Clinton is invaluable to a strongman like Nazarbayev.

ROBERT HERMAN (former Clinton State Department official): I think it's going to embolden the regime and also going to undercut democracy and human rights activists on the ground.

MITCHELL: In fact, among Nazarbayev's critics: Hillary Clinton, who along with other members of Congress sounded alarms about Kazakhstan's serious corruption in this letter to then-Secretary of State Colin Powell. Still, even after she started running for president last year, her husband hosted Giustra and the head of Kazakhstan's uranium agency at their Chappaqua home. A week later, the State Department condemned Kazakhstan in its annual human rights report for serious abuses and even petty censorship of the website for Borat, the satirical movie about Kazakhstan.

[clip from Borat]

MITCHELL: All this is unchartered territory, given Bill Clinton's unprecedented role.

MICHAEL BESCHLOSS (NBC News presidential historian): That's going to cause complications in a campaign and also means that, if she is elected president, the roles are going to have to be very clearly defined.

MITCHELL: Tonight, a spokesman for President Clinton points out that the Bush administration has hosted Kazakhstan's leader and that Clinton's praise for him was only pro forma, being polite.

And Clinton's friend Frank Giustra tells NBC News Bill Clinton did not play a role in the uranium deal, which he says was substantially completed before they arrived in Kazakhstan. And all involved deny any quid pro quo. Andrea Mitchell, NBC News, Washington.

From the February 1 edition of MSNBC's Morning Joe:

BREZEZINSKI: Hey, Andrea, tell us about this link between Bill Clinton and a deal out of Kazakhstan and donations again to the William Jefferson Clinton Foundation --

SCARBOROUGH: Over $30 million --

BREZEZINSKI: -- which are now being questioned that this might be a little bit too cozy.

MITCHELL: Well, you know, this is unprecedented, uncharted territory, to have a former president with all of his clout and international appeal and fundraising ability, and he's done so much, billions of dollars, good works, AIDS, throughout the world, the tsunami relief. So for him to say, as he did on Meet the Press with Tim last year, that he is going to continue to raise money if she were the nominee, if she is elected, that is uncharted territory. And so The New York Times, Newsweek, and then we started following some of the money. And one of the issues that has been raised is whether there are ethical, diplomatic conflicts of interests, embarrassments, potential problems for him with some of these contacts. This was Kazakhstan. He went with a very good friend and contributor, Frank Giustra, a Canadian tycoon, to Kazakhstan and praised the leader there, who's a very controversial dictator there, and two days later, Mr. Giustra gets a commitment for three uranium contracts for the Kazakhstan state-owned mines. This was very much sought after. A few months later, he makes a contribution of $31 million to the Clinton Foundation and, later, a pledge for $100 million more. No quid pro quo has been alleged. Nothing wrong with either the contract or what Bill Clinton did. But this was at a time when the U.S. State Department was criticizing the Kazakhs, and Hillary Clinton was one of the senators on record also criticizing the Kazakh leader. So there are conflicts of interest that are embedded in these relationships, and he is going to have to be very careful. And even some of his own people know that he's going to have to review where he goes for his money from now on.

BRZEZKINSKI: Wow, well explained. NBC's Andrea Mitchell.

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by edenscape246494 (February 01, 2008 8:50 pm ET)
         

      Yeah but Keith Olbermann...

       

      Report Abuse
    • Author by SpacegirlArt (February 01, 2008 9:50 pm ET)
         

      Keith Olbermann is just another part of the WaPo/NBC/MSNBC cabal whose goal it is to defeat Clinton on the ground like they did to Edwards and to throw Obama to their benefactors - the Republicans.

       

      I may be stupid, but i have been trying to figure all this strategy by the "media". Andrea Mitchell, whom I used to respect, married to the man who engineered the biggest take-down of the American people through the Federal Reserve and the Mortgage/Credit debacle....Chris Matthews, Wolf Blitzer, Joe...all of them in their love-fest with Obama, but who don't TOUCH the Republicans with serious questions.

       

      If they are so in love with Obama, why not touch the Republicans, and why the big "conservative" smack-down of John McCain? 

       

      I've not quite figured out who's zoomin' who here. And why, except to preserve the status quo...

       

      Any help with this? It just gets curiouser and curiouser.... 

      The one thing I am enjoying is that people like Rush are becoming irrelevant, thank God. Screaming ever-louder. To hear them eat their own is sadly funny.

      They really don't "get it" at all. Nor does MSNBC. That people WANT A CHANGE. Whether that is for Clinton, Obama, McCain or anyone else, I believe American's are SICK TO DEATH of the tripe offered on the airwaves as well as in government. I heard Glenn Beck on the radio the other day, and he was absolutely apoplectic by even the THOUGHT of a Republican President WORKING WITH Democrats.

      That they believe this is a Cardinal Sin show just how out of touch and desperate they are.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by Sams Computer (February 01, 2008 9:55 pm ET)
         
      HAVE YOU HEARD...

      ANN COULTER JUST ENDORSED HILLARY !!??

      If McCain gets the Republican Party Nomination. She just said this on Hannity & Colmes. Ann said if that happens she will campaign for Hillary. Bottom line...

      It's got to be another one of her lies. Are Republicans in the process of a big time fracturing. Even my personal Republican friends say they WON'T EVEN VOTE, if it's McCain?

      I think this might be the NeoCon Wing rebelling against McCain. Go Figure!?
      Report Abuse
      • Author by Don Hussein Fabuloso (February 01, 2008 11:34 pm ET)
           

        Sam, I think AnnieChrist is just getting desperate for attention,while trying to jump on the True Conservative bandwagon with the other GOP puppets on the radio and TV.

        Sean Hannity tried to do some satire on his radio show the other day. I caught the opening, and he was pretending to come around to that left wing moonbat McCain by suggesting he (Hannity) might be ready to leave behind some of his Reagan Conservative principles.

        Funny part was, it took me a second to catch on, as it was the most rational thing I ever heard come out of hannity's mouth. I thought for a second he had found the missing part of his brain.He blew it by throwing  too many GOP talking points and strawmen into his little act. well, not for some of his listeners, who I heard later calling in pretty angry with him.

        He had to explain to his great Americans that he was still as stoopid as the Sean they loved.

        I don't think the Republicken party is in immediate danger of extinction, but some of the older and the most unthinking see the party slipping away from their extreme brand of conservatism, and I think they're scared enough to start acting way more crazy than usual..

        Report Abuse
        • Author by Don Hussein Fabuloso (February 01, 2008 11:36 pm ET)
             
          Hey, you got me way off topic. This Clinton story seems as damning as that clip of Jack Murtha refusing to accept a bribe from those Saudis.I wish the wingnuts were as diligent about looking into Republicans agreeing to criminal activity as they are about catching everybody else avoiding it.
          Report Abuse

my.MediaMatters.org

Login  Sign Up

Push Back

Phone calls, emails and letters from the public do make a difference. Remember that to be effective you must be polite, and professional. Express your specific concerns regarding that particular news report or commentary, and indicate what you would like the media outlet to do differently in the future.