comScore
Opinion
Video

Fox News’ Shep Smith Methodically Debunks Uranium One Conspiracy Theories

While Fox News has doubled down on the Uranium One story on recent weeks, devoting hours of programming time to the Obama-era uranium deal in an effort to paint it as “the real Russian conspiracy,” one prominent face on the network has completely avoided covering it. Until today, that is. And let’s just say, he covered the story in a far different way than, say, Sean Hannity.

With Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee pushing Attorney General Jeff Sessions today to appoint a special counsel to investigate Hillary Clinton’s involvement in the deal, Fox News anchor Shepard Smith devoted a few minutes this afternoon to breaking down the facts of the deal. In doing so, he made it clear that much of what’s been reported on his own network about the “scandalous” deal doesn’t hold water.

After giving a bit of a history lesson on mining company Uranium One and the 2010 deal involving a Russian agency obtaining controlling interest in the company, Smith highlighted that this rose to the level of scandal after a Breitbart editor-at-large wrote in a 2015 book that a quid-pro-quo occurred between then-Secretary of State Clinton and Russia via donations to the Clinton Foundation.

“That statement is inaccurate in a number of ways,” Smith noted. “First, the Clinton State Department had no power to veto or approve that transaction. It could do neither.”

The Fox News anchor went on to explain how the approval process worked with this particular deal while pointing out that Clinton appeared to have very little, if any, involvement. Also, regarding the claims that $140 million was donated to the Clinton Foundation from investors involved in the deal, Smith pointed out that most of those donations cited were from a man who sold his stake in the company in 2007, three years before the deal.

He ended his report by saying the following:

“If true, the donation to the Clinton Foundation from confirmed Uranium One investors dropped from more than $145 million to $4 million. The Clinton Foundation did not disclose those donations. After a New York Times story exposed them, the foundation reported they made mistakes, saying they disclosed money from a Canadian charity but did not specify the names of the donors to the charity… Even so, the accusation is predicated on the charge that Secretary Clinton approved the sale. She did not. A committee of nine evaluated the sale. The president approved the sale. The nuclear regulatory commission and others had to offer permits and none of the uranium was exported for use by the US to Russia. That is Uranium One.”

Last night, it was reported that Sessions had directed his top prosecutors to evaluate whether a special counsel would be needed in a probe of Uranium One and Clinton. During today’s hearing, the attorney general said that “it would take a factual basis” to appoint a special prosecutor to probe Clinton.

Watch the clip above, via Fox News.

[image via screengrab]

Follow Justin Baragona on Twitter: @justinbaragona

This is an opinion piece. The views expressed in this article are those of just the author.

  1. Mediaite
  2. The Mary Sue
  3. RunwayRiot
  4. Law & Crime
  5. SportsGrid
  6. Gossip Cop