Skip to content

Clinton Foundation Donor: Foundation Money Questions ‘Just A Political Battle’

SIGN UP FOR OUR NEWSLETTER

US Global Investors CEO and Clinton Foundation Donor Frank Holmes dismissed questions regarding the foundation as “just a political battle” on Tuesday’s “Squawk Box” on CNBC.

Holmes detailed his history with uranium stocks, saying, “Well, it goes back to 2002, 2003. We were very early that whole reserve cycle, and many times I was on your program talking about this big secular bull market. … So, the uranium space we had many stocks in that whole category and we sold and before it became what Kazakhstan — that the government got involved, etc., and all that drama’s taking place in 2010. Whatever these other dates are. We were long gone before 2008.”

When asked about the specific dates when he purchased and sold stock in Uranium One, Holmes couldn’t give specifics, but maintained he sold the stock before 2008, and explained his charitable giving by stating that he gives money to lots of causes.

Holmes was then asked when he started giving money to the Clinton Foundation, to which he said that he started giving the foundation money in 2006 or 2007.

Holmes dismissed claims that he donated money to the foundation to get benefits for himself as “a lot of disinformation. That’s just a political battle this year, and the same type of story I think came out seven years ago. I think that’s a really harsh story, especially against Frank Giustra, Ian Telfer” before talking about Giustra and Telfer’s business acumen.

Holmes was asked again if he had given money to the foundation to get benefits for himself, he stated, “No, there’s no — I had no idea any of those two events. there are two separate events because I’ve said earlier, I give to many different types of charitable organizations,” before telling the hosts about other charities he gives money to, which, along with the Clinton Foundation, “do a great job in helping America look great.”

The interview ended with Holmes being informed that his explanations were unclear and equivocal by some of the anchors, a characterization he strongly disagreed with.

Follow Ian Hanchett on Twitter @IanHanchett


Comment count on this article reflects comments made on Breitbart.com and Facebook. Visit Breitbart's Facebook Page.