Two things about what is said in this article. First, it appears that Hillary is exonerated by the facts but, the article suggests too that there is room left for legitimate suspicion, of the kind and enough that I have to think that if those who oppose Donald Trump had the same information as this article reports on Donald, they just might want an inquiry.
That Bill Clinton had ties, some kind of ties, to Russians who were tied in some way to the company that would own uranium mines in the United States, this seems true. That Bill Clinton and the Clinton Foundation took money from Russians tied, in someway or another, to the uranium company involved in the matter, according to the article, is true. Again, in my mind, this is grounds for suspicion, grounds enough to make the request for further inquiry, motives aside, a legitimate one.
Did the Clintons do anything wrong? As the article points out, they did not make the deal and, it appears, with or without Hillary’s approval, the deal would have gone forward. But there is legitimate reason for suspicion that Russian generosity to the Clintons, in the form of the generous fee paid Bill for a speaking engagement, and gifts to the Clinton family Foundation.
So, as I have said before, I do think that those who oppose the idea of an investigation into the uranium story stop opposing for opposing an inquiry will provide those whose real motives are to divert attention away from Trump’s Russia problems greater legitimacy in that opposition will create the appearance (at the least) that there is something to hide.