Bowsite.com

Or not?

From The American Thinker:

November 21, 2017

"Uranium One noose is tightening

By Thomas Lifson

Now that the FBI's informant on the Uranium One deal has been outed and the nondisclosure agreement formerly muzzling him abrogated, it is possible to see the outlines of the devastating case to be made against not just Hillary Clinton, but the entire Obama administration.  

Two intrepid reporters, John Solomon of The Hill and Sara Carter of Circa News and Sinclair Broadcasting, are gaining access to some of the reported 50,000 documents in the possession of William Campbell, the whistleblower who went to the FBI with the scary details of what appeared to him to be an illegal attempt by Russian entities to take over the world uranium market, including even the uranium resources in our ground.

Reporting in The Hill, Solomon calls our attention to what could be a key to understanding the magnitude of the scandal:

'Campbell, who was paid $50,000 a month to consult for the firm, was solicited by Rosatom colleagues to help overcome political opposition to the Uranium One purchase while collecting FBI evidence that the sale was part of a larger effort by Moscow to make the U.S. more dependent on Russian uranium, contemporaneous emails and memos show.

The attached article is of interest as I believe it highlights the ongoing resolve in Russia to gradually and systematically acquire and control global energy resources," Rod Fisk, an American contractor working for the Russians, wrote in a June 24, 2010 email to Campbell.'

The Russian plot to "control global energy resources" was reported by Campbell to the FBI a year prior to approval of the acquisition.  There is every reason to expect – and the proof would be available to congressional investigators or (cough) a special counsel or U.S. attorney – that this information was passed up the chain to A.G. Eric Holder and even President Obama.  Yet CFIUS – the group of agency heads that must approve such transactions on which Holder and Hillary sat – went ahead and approved this sale that the U.S. knew was part of a Russian plot to control the world uranium and energy markets.

Justice Department officials confirmed the emails and documents gathered by Campbell, saying they were in the possession of the FBI, the department's national security division, and its criminal division at various times over the last decade.  They added that Campbell's work was valuable enough that the FBI paid him nearly $200,000, mostly for reimbursements over six years, but that the money also included a check for more than $51,000 in compensation after the final convictions were secured.

The information he gathered on Uranium One was more significant to the counterintelligence aspect of the case that started in 2008 than the eventual criminal prosecutions that began in 2013, they added.

Solomon and Carter were interviewed last night on Hannity, along with Sullivan's lawyer, Victoria Toensing, and under questioning, they let us know that the money trail from Russia all the way to American political figures via cutouts will be exposed by documented evidence.

Now, contemplate the magnitude of a scandal that could demonstrate foreign money leading to the approval of a sale that harms national security and aids a hostile power (about whose danger the Democrats have been hyperventilating for the past year).  Here is a poor-quality bootleg video of the segment, which may or may not last on YouTube.  If a better copy becomes available, we will post that.

But only if the Sessions Justice Department is willing to press the case, or is forced to approve a special counsel:

'The memos, reviewed by The Hill, conflict with statements made by Justice Department officials in recent days that informant William Campbell's prior work won't shed much light on the U.S. government's controversial decision in 2010 to approve Russia's purchase of the Uranium One mining company and its substantial U.S. assets. Campbell documented for his FBI handlers the first illegal activity by Russians nuclear industry officials in fall 2009, nearly a entire year before the Russian state-owned Rosatom nuclear firm won Obama administration approval for the Uranium One deal, the memos show.'

This official reticence, whatever its origin, will be overcome as Sullivan's cache of 50,000 documents leaks out bit by bit.  Attorney Toensing knows exactly what she is doing here and how outside pressure can affect the grinding of the gears of justice.

. ..

.. . . .

. . . . not holding my breath, many times the Clintons should have been put in jail, but yet they walk the earth still . . . . .

I'm sure I'm not the only one here who, when it became clear Hillary had signed over 20% of our uranium production to THE RUSSIANS, said to themselves, WTF?????

"What Happened?"

That is spot on more than you know.

Regardless of what happens, she will cast blame it on EVERYONE other than herself.

Nothing is EVER her fault!

When bad things happen on her watch, it's solely because other people didn't comprehend her awesomeness and wonderfulness.

If you don't understand that, that's also your fault.

She's proven that to us innumerable times since last year's election.

1. Hillary was one of 9 department heads and cabinet members who reviewed the Uranium One deal, but they had no authority to approve or stop the deal. Only Obama could do that.

2. The Uranium One deal was simply for mining rights on 3 mines, not exporting rights. The uranium is still controlled by the US.

3. The Uranium One deal represented 20% of current US capacity at the time of the deal, not 20% of our uranium resources. That's a huge distinction that is often ignored.

4. Uranium One is only mining one of their 3 leases. That mine produced only 23 tons in 2016, which was 2.3% of all US production.

5. The US consumes 55 million tons of uranium a year. So, Uranium One's meager 23 ton contribution in 2016 was almost meaningless.

Facts are a bitch to conspiracy theories.

Matt

The distinction between the US controlling where their uranium goes versus Uranium One controlling those decisions seems to elude you.

Matt

Its still considered a 'Strategic asset' right?

And there is a clear 'Pay to Play' connection with the donations to the Clinton foundation...though in our legal system that may not be enough.

Lastly, Sessions, Mueller & Comey were just too close to this when it was going down....It seems obvious its in their best interest for this to die.

With all due respect, you respond to every single post the troll makes, usually within minutes of his posts. And your responses lack any content other than personal attacks and name calling. In fact, you rarely comment or respond to any other posts other than the troll's.

In this case, I have to agree, you do seem obsessed with the troll. Most of us ignore him, since he's proven he's not worthy of our responses. Perhaps you should try the same approach, and the troll may go away for good.

Matt

Matt

More like flies to crap.

Matt

You are correct, Bent, no one should care about your little bro-mance with the troll. It adds a nice intellectual relief to real discussions.

Carry on, this will be the last time I mention it.

Matt

I reason that anyone with half a brain can see the clear 'pay to play' connections to Hillary feathering her nest and her integrity for sale to the highest bidder. That should bother even the most devout Liberal Dem....she sold all of us out.

That said, this will be hard to prosecute now....as the FBI and DOJ at the time let her skate and cover her tracks. This too should make ALL of us cringe...its the misuse of power for their own personal gain at the expense of the American people. I dunno if GG is rationalizing since its a small % or not- its cheating plain and simple. The FBI and DOJ at the time are as culpable as the Clintons IMO....which really says a lot about how corrupt out gov actually is.

I'm not rationalizing, just stating facts that don't jive with current conspiracy theories.

Look, until it's proven that 9 department heads and cabinet members, countless aides, the FBI, the CIA, and the POTUS were all involved in a massive coverup just to allow a Russian company to lease 3 uranium mines, which produce a drop in the bucket, I will maintain this is nothing more than a silly conspiracy theory.

Matt

Except that he meant to say the US consumes 55 million POUNDS of uranium a year. Not TONS. Big difference to the desperate defense you are trying to claim. Off by a mere factor of 2000. Sheeesh.

According to this link, there are 62 new reactors under construction, 139 in the planning stage, and 326 more in the proposed stage. Demand set to increase, shortages expected. Control of uranium mining resources is a big deal. Good article here.

The separate issue is about corruption and cover up. That is where we will get to the meat of the issue. MILLIONS of dollars involved. Did the FBI cover up Hillery's email trail? (what LE Agency gives the OK to destroy evidence?? How do they explain clearing her literally before looking at any evidence? She didn't "mean" to break the law? Huh?) Did they know about the bribery case against the Russian nuke/transport company and buried it until after the deal went through? Lots of unanswered questions and yes..... it would seem those "investigating" were involved in much of this. But there is more info coming out all the time. We shall see.

Good catch. Sorry for my mistake.

So, Uranium One's mine produced 23 tons = 46,000 pounds. The US consumes 55,000,000 pounds. That's .0008, or .08%, or 8/100ths of 1%. I maintain that's almost a meaningless amount.

Matt

And there in lies the main point that buzzes over most conspiracy theorist's heads. Uranium One has no control over the uranium that they mine from their US leases. The US maintains control of whatever uranium they produce. Read that twice, if it doesn't sink in the first time.

Basically, the US is allowing a Russian company to mine uranium for the US on US soils. They could shut down their US operation tomorrow without causing a blip on US uranium supply or demand. In fact, there are indications they may do exactly that. Uranium One's production in the US has steadily declined since the deal was done. It's gone from 20% of US production to around 2% this year.

Matt

Again, nobody let Uranium One "into the vault". If anything, they are just a clerk working behind the counter.

They are mining US uranium for the US on US soils. That's it. They are no different than the Canadian company that was doing the same thing at the same mines before being sold to the Russians.

Matt

Per the article some uranium did go to Europe via paper at least. I am not exactly sure how to take that.

What I do find interesting is Kasakh Uranium is flooding the market and dropping the price. Per the graph from link US production has really dropped off since 2014. Uranium One production has dropped off since 13.

I can see Russians buying Uranium One to get the US to buy more Russian Uranium even if some of it is mined in the US. However why flood the market and cause the price to drop.

Take is as a normal commodities transaction. It happens every day. What's important is the US controlled that transaction, not the Russians.

Matt

That said, it never hurts to point out known facts along the way, just so people don't get confused, or mislead. We wouldn't want them drawing biased conclusions, after all. Right?

Matt

A couple of interesting op-eds.

A Bunch of Obama Flunkies Gave Uranium One The Rubber Stamp

From the link:

The members of CFIUS include the heads of the following departments and offices:

1. Department of the Treasury (chair)

2. Department of Justice

3. Department of Homeland Security

4. Department of Commerce

5. Department of Defense

6. Department of State

7. Department of Energy

8. Office of the U.S. Trade Representative

9. Office of Science & Technology Policy

Tell me, if any of these positions aren’t political appointees by the President. Can the president fire any of these individuals if he so pleases?

With those two questions in mind, lets take a trip back in time to when Hillary Clinton was the Secretary of State and the top democrat behind Barack Obama. Didn’t we ALL know that when Obama finished his 2nd term, Hillary Clinton was going to run for president again? Now here’s the kicker, assuming that Hillary would run in 2016 and win (as everyone in Washington did back in 2010) , how many of the people sitting on CFIUS would expect to ever work in a Hillary Clinton administration if they turned her down on the Uranium One deal, after the State Department OK it?

My bet is the members of the committee put their own job security over national security.

Why haven’t they all been subpoenaed to testify before Congress?

The second article:

Just how has the Uranium One scandal been "debunked"?

Worth reading...

"An FBI informant gathered extensive evidence during his six years undercover about a Russian plot to corner the American uranium market...blah, blah, blah..."

So far, they've cornered the US market on a big turd. Uranium One's production over 3 years has steadily gone done. Meanwhile, the rest of the US production has picked up the slack. Perhaps these Russians found out mining US uranium isn't so easy.

The more I look at this deal, the more I think the Canadian company who sold out to the Russians was the real winner. Perhaps we open an investigation on them....on the tawpayer's dime.

Matt

I am not saying there wasn’t something shabby done in the Uranium One deal. But to give US resources to Russians isn’t one of them.

Just so everyone doesn’t get confused. The graphs are in metric tons, that’s 2204.6 Lbs per metric ton. Haha

God bless, Steve

From that link to Virginia Uranium above, "The current annual global consumption is 190 million pounds, while annual global mine production is 140 million pounds, resulting in a 50-million pound deficit. Inventory draw downs and the down-blending of weapons-grade material currently make up the difference. Industry experts, however, project that the supply of these secondary sources will decrease by 50% over the next decade, while global demand for uranium will increase, widening the supply-demand gap. Only primary sources of uranium—i.e., the supply produced from mines—can make up the coming shortfall, because the stockpiles will be gone. The World Nuclear Association predicts that by 2020, mined production will account for 90% of global uranium supply, compared to 75% today."

So a predicted shortage of a strategic element- not insignificant when you are talking demand out stripping supply.

How is the Russian owned Uranium One different than the previous Canadian owned Uranium One?

Matt

Well of course the answer you ignore is; Pay to play politics.

Now let me ask you; Don't you think its a conflict of interest when the the Sec of State is taking millions in Donations from people she is approving business deals with? Don't you think its inappropriate for Hillary to have a Canadian Foundation [and US foundation] that doesn't have to give an itemized report of her donors?

Its impossible to get the facts on Hillary due to her hiding everything. What we do know is that many of her meetings corresponded to significant donations to her foundation. Not admitting that this is a blatant conflict of interest [and probably worse] to feather her nest is disingenuous....and frankly not worth my entertaining the views of someone so blind to this behavior.

One more time, we didn't give up any production. The US controls the uranium that Uranium One produces, the same way the US controlled it when the Canadian company was mining it from the same mines.

As for any illegal connection and massive coverup between the Clinton foundation and the Uranium One deal, I'm waiting for more evidence before drawing a conclusion. It just seems far fetched to me that 9 department heads and all their aides, the FBI, the CIA, and the POTUS would be involved in covering up what is a relatively insignificant deal.

A Russian mining company bought a Canadian mining company. Nothing else changed from business as usual, as far as I can tell.

Matt

In June 2010 Bill Clinton Met with Russia leader Vladimir Putin – In July 2010 Ten Russian Agents Were Released by Obama Without Charges and Given Back to Russia. Putin Praised the Russian Spies as Heroes.

Since you both strike me as having greater interest in works of non-fiction....

There is a good podcast where I think it was the head of RMEF explains how Charity Navigator calculates their rating....pretty ridiculous really.

Note...CN has HSUS as highly rated....and Humanewatch.org has been blowing the whistle on HSUS's dirty dealings for years. ___

Matt, I can respect someone waiting until all of the facts come in...but you didn't answer on the conflict of interest questions. There is enough there already there for a Guilty. Isn't it the officials responsibility to insure no conflict and don't they sign an agreement to that effect? [I don't know the actual rule on this] Are you so much a Dem that you would look the other way on ethical processes? If thats the case them maybe the Republicans should have defended Nixon and kept him in office. This is my problem with the Dems- the ways justify the means. Its OK to use the full weight of the US gov and IRS to go after conservative organizations under Obama...well now the shoe is on the other foot.

You may wish it to be so, but you don't know that, and neither do I. I'm not sure where I advocated "looking the other way on ethical process". I've simply pointed to facts that don't jive with current conspiracy theories.

And BEG brings up another good point. Nobody donates $145 million to purchase a $1.3 bln mining company. It doesn't make any sense from a strategic or business perspective.

It is entertaining watching people twist themselves into knots trying to connect the dots. And maybe they will, eventually, I don't know. Until then, I'll stick with the facts.

Matt

The focus needs to be why the Russians "donated" millions to the Clinton Foundation, why a half million dollar speaking deal for Bill, why the Obama FBI sat on very relevant information of corruption, bribery and money laundering.... information that very likely would have blown up the deal. Just now the pieces are coming into view. Comey's "pardon" of Clinton..... and his compliance with allowing her and her aides to destroy evidence.

WRT dots.... hard to connect any when you refuse to even look for them.....

So, a global power play that locked up about 5-10% of domestic uranium production (or about .5-1% of the total domestic uranium market) with no ability to export the uranium (which is of a grade only used in power plants). Please tell me how this is a "global power play" and just what the Russians were trying to accomplish. Like I said in my last post -- just what was the strategic purpose given the size of the acquisition (both in dollars and cents and the production Uranium One controlled) and given the fact that the United States still controlled any export rights? Until you can answer those questions, it is just a company that, as you put, was "trying to work out a profit and loss" and I will treat the transaction as such.

Yellow cake, which is used to make nuclear bombs. has already been exported and that is a fact. It left Canada some time ago.

Whenever you can control a large share of a finite high value resource the possibility of price manipulation is huge. My guess is that is Putins strategy. The nuclear industry is poised to take off in the future with the new reactor designs as an efficient clean source of energy....

How did you get all the way up to .2% of world production? I've read 140 million pounds are produced worldwide. Uranium One produced a puny 46,000 pounds from their US mines in 2016.

Matt

Matt

Great NYT article written in 2015 on the money trail..... stock values involving as much as half a billion that literally hinged on getting this deal done, if it fell through several others lined up would not have gone through..... in case one might wonder why they felt any need to buy favor.... it's not about just what this one deal with the US cost. Not by a long shot.

All told it looks like 145 million went to the Clinton BackPocket Foundation in this time frame, all from sources with direct ties to this deal. "Just philanthropy, giving back to the world" we are told.....I would like to know what were the totals prior from these sources.... and what it has been since......

All this was written before the "informant" has come out and facts the FBI had investigations ongoing proving that Russia already compromised an American uranium transport company at minimum with bribery, extortion and money laundering.... facts that likely would have shot the deal down in flames if made public, that somehow no one was made aware of..... FBI and Justice dept heads with strong ties to the Clintons. Would seem a big deal. Yet no one knew? Huh.

Naaaa.... just an unfortunate oversight.....yeah, that's the ticket...

Better link to what the FBI knew (and you would think both Obama and Clinton knew) at the time the deal was being approved.

http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/355749-fbi-uncovered-russian-bribery-plot-before-obama-administration

Makes you wonder how many more shadow "investors" or other "friends" who would profit from this deal there may have been on the sidelines as well.

If you don't think this stinks like week old dead bull.... then your the one wearing the clothespin on your nose....

Maybe I missed it but I saw nothing in that link about "$500 mln in stock value" (whatever that even means) and other deals that were "lined up" at risk if the Uranium One acquisition didn't go through. Can you please tell me what I missed?

The American uranium assets that were part of the deal were a side note. This was never about them. It was about the mines in Kazakhstan that came with the acquisition (that produced 6 million pounds of uranium a year...compared to the 46,000 pounds of uranium from the US mines). The US assets amount to less than 1% of the production ARMZ purchased from Uranium One. With the deal being priced at $1.3 bln, a rough proxy would value the US assets at about $13 million dollars -- and that doesn't even include the other assets that were part of the deal in other countries which would value the US assets at even less. So again, a $145 mln payment to accommodate $13 mln dollars worth of assets just doesn't make any sense at all. There's nothing strategic about them at all. You could have literally given the US assets away for nothing to another producer, not had to worry about the CFIUS, and been ahead $130 mln on the deal.

"It was against this backdrop that the Vancouver-based Uranium One pressed the American Embassy in Kazakhstan, as well as Canadian diplomats, to take up its cause with Kazakh officials, according to the American cables.

“We want more than a statement to the press,” Paul Clarke, a Uranium One executive vice president, told the embassy’s energy officer on June 10, the officer reported in a cable. “That is simply chitchat.” What the company needed, Mr. Clarke said, was official written confirmation that the licenses were valid.

The American Embassy ultimately reported to the secretary of state, Mrs. Clinton. Though the Clarke cable was copied to her, it was given wide circulation, and it is unclear if she would have read it; the Clinton campaign did not address questions about the cable.

What is clear is that the embassy acted, with the cables showing that the energy officer met with Kazakh officials to discuss the issue on June 10 and 11.

Three days later, a wholly owned subsidiary of Rosatom completed a deal for 17 percent of Uranium One. And within a year, the Russian government substantially upped the ante, with a generous offer to shareholders that would give it a 51 percent controlling stake. But first, Uranium One had to get the American government to sign off on the deal."

Again.... focus on the one transaction in the US is a distorted figure. A billion+ dollar company was about to loose a great deal of value (already down 40%) if the deals, both the Kazakhstan deal, which was floundering until the US Embassy there publicly went to bat for U1 (SOS Clinton in charge of and directs all embassies, not just Benghazi....) AND the US deal did not go through.... vast sums of money if not the entire company could be lost.

It would seem Clinton acted in U1's interests on many stages across the globe and many levels, again.... tunnel vision focus of one American deal in a spreadsheet manner would be grossly inaccurate. Far more was at stake. You asked why they would spend so much on "influence" for such a "small" investment...... This would help explain that.

Generally speaking, you land somewhere in the middle. How much the stock price was down is irrelevant. Further more, when a deal is announced, it can push stock price down even further, or it can raise stock price (depending on who the market thinks got the better end of the stick so to speak and how likely they think it is that a deal will go through). Plenty of companies see a dip in stock price when an acquisition is announced.

Nothing in the article suggests who stood to gain how much or who stood to lose how much from the transaction going through. Furthermore, there isn't a thing in the article that suggests "the entire company could be lost."

And let's be clear. There isn't a "Kazakhstan deal" and a "US deal." There was a deal for 17% of Uranium One (which ARMZ paid for with a 50% interest in a mine in Kazakhstan). Then there was a deal for an additional 34% of Uranium One (which ARMZ paid for with a 50% interest in two separate Kazakh mines plus $610 million in cash), taking ARMZ ownership of Uranium One to 51%. The second deal was not contingent on the first. The second deal required US involvement because it ARMZ would then have a controlling interest in Uranium One, which produced a paltry amount of US uranium.

As I see it, all they had to do was divest the US portion of Uranium One (again, which I put a notional value of about $13 million on based on the deal value and percentage of the deal that the US production made up -- I welcome anyone to provide me with more accurate numbers) and the CFIUS approval would no longer be a thing.

SHOCKED, I tell you!

LOL!