Twelve months after graduating from the University of Wisconsin Amed Khan found himself working just outside the Oval Office, for then President Bill Clinton.
Growing up in New York, UW’s intellectual tradition and the Wisconsin Idea drew Khan in. As a student he was often found in deep discussions with professors in North Hall, biking around Lake Mendota or exploring the Arboretum.
Khan, a long-time aide to the former president, was on campus for a Board of Visitors meeting this week and sat down with The Badger Herald. Khan is the president of a private investment firm and continues to serve as a senior advisor to the Clinton-Giustra Sustainable Growth Initiative.
While he was on campus Thursday, The New York Times published an article on foreign donations flowing to the Clinton Foundation while Hillary Clinton was serving as Secretary of State.
According to The Times’ article, a Canadian-based company, Uranium One, had stakes in lucrative mines in Kazakhstan and about 20 percent of the United States’ uranium capacity. A Russian company named Rosatom sought to buy Uranium One.
Because some of the mines were in the U.S. and uranium is a strategic commodity, the deal required government approval. Several parties with key interests in getting the deal passed made donations to the Clinton Foundation, including the chairman of Uranium One, according to the article.
The State Department was one of several government agencies that had to approve the uranium deal.
But, Khan said the Times’ article was “journalistically irresponsible” and incorrect. It weaved an elaborate set of coincidences together with no proof or evidence, he said.
He said the article has the timeline of events wrong and is “a lot of conjecture and a lot of allegations.” The Times chose not to include a number of details that would have “poked holes” in their story.
The article, Khan said, was a civics lesson. The Times drastically mischaracterized how the government works. The issue never reached the Secretary of States’ desk, and he said it’s just not how decision-making works.
There were too many agencies involved, mile-long paper trails, dozens of briefings and recommendations, and ultimately, he said these are decisions made by the White House.
“It would be very transparent if [Hillary Clinton] was somehow lobbying on behalf of this, and I can categorically deny that she ever was,” Khan said.
The Times’ article does not say Hillary Clinton took any actions during her time as Secretary of State to support interests of donors to the Clinton Foundation, but Khan said the article’s purpose was to make you think she did.
“[The Times] knows a Secretary of State doesn’t have the authority to make a trade pact,” he said. “It’s laughable.”
The Times’ article only adds onto the list of things presidential candidate Hillary Clinton has recently come under fire for. But Hillary Clinton is no stranger to controversy, having been met with criticisms through many of her years serving in public office.
Khan said the media loves to attack the Clintons, calling it sensationalist journalism.
“I don’t know, do you tip at Chipotle – is this really important?” he asks. “There’s the Iraq situation, there’s Syria, what are we talking about? This is how we find out if our candidates are good to be president or not? Tip at Chipotle?”
The Times’ article was based off a storyline in conservative author Peter Schweizer’s upcoming book, Clinton Cash.
If the book has false allegations against the Clintons, Khan said he is confident the facts are on the Clinton’s side. As long as the facts are presented, people can decide for themselves, he said.
“I ultimately have incredible faith in the American public, that they are above being manipulated by people with agendas,” he said. “I haven’t lost that optimism that I left [UW] with.”
