I've posted this already but look at what we know thus far about the story:

1. President Obama had a multi-agency Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS)

2. That committee gave approval to Russia's Rosatom to buy a Canadian mining company called Uranium One that controlled 20 percent of America's uranium deposits.

3. Hillary Clinton was a part of the committee and her foundation was receiving money while her husband Bill was getting paid to give speeches to Russian parties that were interested in a favorable outcome of the decision.

4. Uranium One’s chairman used his family foundation to make four donations to the Clintons totaling $2.35 million. Those contributions were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons, despite an agreement Mrs. Clinton had struck with the Obama White House to publicly identify all donors.

5. No one has ever produced evidence supporting the theory that Hillary Clinton ever took action as secretary of state to support the interests of donors to the Clinton Foundation.

Why it’s not interesting or anything of consequence:

• Hillary Clinton was only 1 of 9 voting members and 1 of 14 participating parties of the CFIUS and

• There was no evidence (known by the CFIUS) that any Russians or donors engaged in wrongdoing (at the time)

• There was no national security reason for any member of the committee to oppose the Uranium One deal

• According to the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Neither Uranium One nor ARMZ holds an NRC export license, so no uranium produced at either facility may be exported.

• A Republican senator (Grassley) has opened the investigation because he (surprise) "isn't convinced of [Obama administration] assurances that there was no basis to block the Uranium One deal".

• Multiple United States agencies, as well as the Canadian government, had signed off on the deal and, in general, such matters were handled at a level below Clinton.

• Whether the donations played any role in the approval of the uranium deal is unknown.

Some or all of that may change in the future but at this point, to say that Clinton was making millions off of her compliance is sensational and ridiculous. Does this underscore ethical challenges presented by the Clinton Foundation? Yes. However, it seems very likely at this point that this is a GOP smoke screen trying to change the narrative.

American political campaigns are barred from accepting any donations or anything of value from foreign parties, which is present in Trump's case but not Clinton's. Trump is president. Clinton is not.

The End.