Summit Treestands
Bad News for Hillary on Uranium One
Community
Contributors to this thread:
NvaGvUp 22-Nov-17
tonyo6302 22-Nov-17
Woods Walker 22-Nov-17
Brotsky 22-Nov-17
NvaGvUp 22-Nov-17
Shuteye 22-Nov-17
Atheist 22-Nov-17
JTV 22-Nov-17
NvaGvUp 22-Nov-17
Woods Walker 22-Nov-17
Paul 22-Nov-17
keepemsharp 22-Nov-17
NvaGvUp 22-Nov-17
Woods Walker 22-Nov-17
Gray Ghost 22-Nov-17
JTV 22-Nov-17
Gray Ghost 22-Nov-17
Beendare 22-Nov-17
JTV 22-Nov-17
Atheist 23-Nov-17
Bentstick81 23-Nov-17
Atheist 23-Nov-17
JTV 24-Nov-17
Shuteye 24-Nov-17
Bentstick81 24-Nov-17
Bentstick81 24-Nov-17
Gray Ghost 24-Nov-17
Bentstick81 24-Nov-17
Gray Ghost 24-Nov-17
K Cummings 24-Nov-17
Gray Ghost 24-Nov-17
K Cummings 24-Nov-17
Bentstick81 24-Nov-17
Spike Bull 24-Nov-17
Gray Ghost 24-Nov-17
K Cummings 24-Nov-17
bigeasygator 24-Nov-17
Bentstick81 24-Nov-17
Beendare 24-Nov-17
Spike Bull 24-Nov-17
Gray Ghost 24-Nov-17
BowSniper 24-Nov-17
JTV 24-Nov-17
TD 24-Nov-17
JTV 24-Nov-17
JTV 24-Nov-17
JTV 24-Nov-17
Gray Ghost 24-Nov-17
slade 24-Nov-17
Woods Walker 24-Nov-17
K Cummings 24-Nov-17
Sixby 24-Nov-17
Gray Ghost 24-Nov-17
K Cummings 24-Nov-17
Gray Ghost 24-Nov-17
Fulldraw1972 24-Nov-17
Gray Ghost 24-Nov-17
Shuteye 24-Nov-17
Woods Walker 24-Nov-17
K Cummings 24-Nov-17
Gray Ghost 24-Nov-17
K Cummings 24-Nov-17
Annony Mouse 24-Nov-17
JTV 24-Nov-17
slade 24-Nov-17
Gray Ghost 24-Nov-17
JTV 24-Nov-17
Fulldraw1972 24-Nov-17
Sixby 24-Nov-17
Ryan from Boone 25-Nov-17
JTV2 25-Nov-17
Beendare 25-Nov-17
Gray Ghost 25-Nov-17
Beendare 26-Nov-17
trublucolo 26-Nov-17
Gray Ghost 26-Nov-17
JTV 26-Nov-17
Ryan from Boone 26-Nov-17
slade 26-Nov-17
Bentstick81 26-Nov-17
JTV 26-Nov-17
Mike in CT 26-Nov-17
Annony Mouse 26-Nov-17
JTV 26-Nov-17
Bentstick81 26-Nov-17
brunse 26-Nov-17
bigeasygator 27-Nov-17
JTV 27-Nov-17
bigeasygator 27-Nov-17
Beendare 27-Nov-17
Gray Ghost 28-Nov-17
TD 28-Nov-17
bigeasygator 28-Nov-17
Shuteye 28-Nov-17
Beendare 28-Nov-17
bigeasygator 28-Nov-17
bigeasygator 28-Nov-17
Gray Ghost 28-Nov-17
bigeasygator 28-Nov-17
Grey Ghost 28-Nov-17
bigeasygator 28-Nov-17
TD 28-Nov-17
JTV 28-Nov-17
bad karma 28-Nov-17
bigeasygator 29-Nov-17
TD 29-Nov-17
Dirk Diggler 29-Nov-17
bigeasygator 29-Nov-17
Spike Bull 29-Nov-17
From: NvaGvUp
22-Nov-17
Here we go again?

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.

From: tonyo6302
22-Nov-17
Time will tell if Justice will prevail.

. ..

.. . . .

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

From: Woods Walker
22-Nov-17
I go with "or not". The system is way too corrupt. She should ALREADY be in jail for destroying subpoenaed evidence, or at the very minimum under investigation, and she's not.

From: Brotsky
22-Nov-17
I swear Hillary wears Teflon pants suits. Nothing sticks to her.

From: NvaGvUp
22-Nov-17
The thing that's different on this one is that a LOT of Obama's key people seem to be involved, not just Hillary.

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?????

From: Shuteye
22-Nov-17
Sarah and John are on Hannity nearly every night. They will probably get a Pulitzer prize. They have been on this for a long time. The informant's lawyer has been a friend of Sean Hannity for decades and he says she is one tough cookie that knows what she is doing. Sarah's investigative reporting makes watergate reporters look like amateurs. She is a real reporter. Sarah has informants in the FBI that keep her up to date.

From: Atheist
22-Nov-17
As we speak, there are no investigations concerning Clinton or uranium. None. So before we ‘lock her up’, maybe start with an investigation first?

From: JTV
22-Nov-17
its coming there dickless ... just wait till the FBI informant gets his information out there .. rumor has it the witch cant keep enough Depends on hand as she keeps pissin' on her self over the news ... lol ...

From: NvaGvUp
22-Nov-17
LOL, JTV!!

"What Happened?"

From: Woods Walker
22-Nov-17
It's coming.....and so's Christmas. The b*tch is untouchable, face it.

From: Paul
22-Nov-17
WW why is she untouchable ?

From: keepemsharp
22-Nov-17
The way to "drain the swamp" is to just put Hillary in orange jump suits. She will drain everyone else.

From: NvaGvUp
22-Nov-17
Dave,

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.

From: Woods Walker
22-Nov-17
Paul: Good question! I don't like the fact that she's untouchable, but the reality so far has been exactly that. I don't know how more obvious it can be shy of her murdering someone with her own hands on the steps of the Capital Building....and sometimes I think she may even get away with that!

From: Gray Ghost
22-Nov-17

Gray Ghost's Link
Yawn.

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

From: JTV
22-Nov-17
Uranium has to stay ?? .....yea, FACTS are a bitch ... suck on Clinton's big toe much ?? .....maybe you'd like to massage her cankels ... as all you libs/dems circle the wagon on Clinton and her Crime Cartel ...

from the Hill ..

Uranium One deal led to exports to Europe, memos show .....

Yet NRC memos reviewed by The Hill show that it did approve the shipment of yellowcake uranium — the raw material used to make nuclear fuel and weapons — from the Russian-owned mines in the United States to Canada in 2012 through a third party. Later, the Obama administration approved some of that uranium going all the way to Europe, government documents show.

From: Gray Ghost
22-Nov-17
JTV,

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

Matt

From: Beendare
22-Nov-17
Matts info is news to me.

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.

From: JTV
22-Nov-17
very much eludes you on a daily basis... you obviously dont care that this was a pay to play scheme, ..... in 2015 Billy Boy received $500,000 from a Russian investment back with ties to the Kremlin... $145 Million went to the Clinton Foundation from interests linked to U One which was acquired by Rosatum the Russian Nuke agency, and this all goes deeper, way deeper than just this ..... you think this was coincidence ?? ... if you do, your more ignorant than I think you are..which is quite a bit actually .... this whole thing makes Watergate look like a folly ...

From: Atheist
23-Nov-17
Flynn is now working with Muellers team. He knows everything. Or at least enough to cause a few problems for trump. This will make watergate look like bush league stuff.

From: Bentstick81
23-Nov-17
atheist, THE FRAUD. You seem really sure, THIS TIME. Still want to bet on Trump's Impeachment??? Oh, that's right. I'm dealing with a LYING, FRAUD, PHONY, with no balls. You are always typing stuff on here, then running away. This is what pukes, like you, do. No guts to back the bull$hit, you put on here. True dem. 8^)))

From: Atheist
23-Nov-17
Count how many times you claim that I run away. Yet I come back. Then count how many times you feel the need to respond to everything I say. I’d say you’re kind of a fan ordering on obsession. I’m flattered.

From: JTV
24-Nov-17
no, no flattering from Bent, just pointing out the asswipe jerk you really are ....

From: Shuteye
24-Nov-17
Sarah Carter says there is more to come. She has been looking at some documents that show the FBI was informed about the Russians dealing with Uranium One and documents show the FBI took the information all the way to the top in the white house. This was a year before Uranium One was signed.

From: Bentstick81
24-Nov-17
atheist. There you go, LYING your a$$ off AGAIN. You never stay with any comment you make. YOU ARE A LIAR. Thanks for proving my point. You are too stupid to see you are doing nothing but proving how PHONY you are. Oh, and don't worry. I don't have a problem responding to every one of your replies. I have to make sure, and point out, that everyone understands, and knows that you are a LIAR and FRAUD, so get use to it. If you say you are flattered by someone, showing how much of a LIAR and FRAUD, that you are, than you are a complete idiot. But hey, we already know that. 8^)))

From: Bentstick81
24-Nov-17
atheist, "Count how many times you claim that i ran away." You pretty much gave that away, with all the different registrations you have been through?? That makes you a FRAUD. You claim to be a BIG MAN, care to enlighten us as to why all the registrations??? If we can be sure that your answer isn't another LIE from you, THE LIAR! 8^)))

From: Gray Ghost
24-Nov-17
Bent,

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

From: Bentstick81
24-Nov-17
That's fine GG. If you think i am obsessed with the troll, good luck with that. I don't have a problem of pointing out his faults, and lies, no matter how many times he puts them out there. If i were you, i wouldn't read any of my posts. I don't want to make you upset.

From: Gray Ghost
24-Nov-17
OK, if you want to put yourself at the same level as the troll, I guess that's your prerogative. Just realize, you are providing exactly what the troll is looking for.

Matt

From: K Cummings
24-Nov-17
"Just realize, you are providing exactly what the troll is looking for."

It amazes me that some people just don't get this.

Like moths to a flame...

KPC

From: Gray Ghost
24-Nov-17
KPC,

More like flies to crap.

Matt

From: K Cummings
24-Nov-17
Good point...

KPC

From: Bentstick81
24-Nov-17
GG. You and KPC argue and disagree with 80% of the people on here. But that's ok, isn't it. You guys are right, "More like flies to crap." Go back and look at all the people you guys argue with. It always, "AMAZES", you guys on just about every thread. One thing is for sure, you guys are easily AMAZED. You two are on the same level as a TROLL. So who are you kidding? I know, YOURSELVES. See, you guys are teaming up on a poster, me, and proving my point. If you two don't want to be AMAZED, and be drawn in like, FLIES TO CRAP, don't read my replies. No need to go in a corner, and scratch your ba!!s and cry about it. No one is making you. I bet you two are really AMAZED now, aren't you? Hope you two can have an AMAZING Thanksgiving.

24-Nov-17
Hahahahahaaaa!

From: Gray Ghost
24-Nov-17
Well, that escalated quickly.

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

From: K Cummings
24-Nov-17
I'll tell what else amazes me, although it really shouldn't.

That fact some people can't tell the difference between the postings of an ignorant fool and that of a "troll." A "troll" is actually smart enough to know that what he is posting is crap, he just delights in watching ignorant fools come unglued about it.

An ignorant fool, on the other hand, actually believes the crap he posts.

Atheist is a "troll," and the "ignorant fools" are drawn to him like moths to a flame.

It is a symbiotic relationship. Look it up.

KPC

From: bigeasygator
24-Nov-17
Bingo^^^ you can count on the same cast of characters to respond every time. They’re easy to identify as their posts are filled with nary a fact and plenty an insult.

From: Bentstick81
24-Nov-17
8^))) Have a Great day guys.

From: Beendare
24-Nov-17
Back to the subject at hand.

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.

24-Nov-17
In truth, it is surely just the tip of the iceberg, Beendare.

From: Gray Ghost
24-Nov-17
Beendare,

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

From: BowSniper
24-Nov-17

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

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.

From: JTV
24-Nov-17

JTV's embedded Photo
JTV's embedded Photo
..... the two sitting HIGH on the perch have spoken.... then crapped all over themselves ..

From: TD
24-Nov-17
The actual deal, the uranium mines/rights purchase, etc. is likely legal. All the proper parties signed off on it.

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.

From: JTV
24-Nov-17

JTV's embedded Photo
JTV's embedded Photo
or considering the cast of dopes who think they rise above it all... then crap all over themselves ...this is better ...

From: JTV
24-Nov-17
all one has to do is follow the money... and that leads right to the Clinton's and Russia ..... but yet the gentleman who was undercover for 6 years, and will spill the beans so to speak is already lying in the eyes of the libs and some on here... I mean is HAS to be a conspiracy... or maybe orders from Clinton and Obama... Mueller and his ilk also have dirtied their hands in this ..... once the informant talks to congress and points fingers with evidence many in the Obama administration will crap their panties, as will some dweebs on here I believe ..

From: JTV
24-Nov-17

JTV's Link
Great link ... From Circa News and Sara Carter herself... she should win the Pulitzer after this ... watch the vids and read the article......those on that perch may learn something ... use those critical thinking skills ...lol ...

From: Gray Ghost
24-Nov-17
"Except that he meant to say the US consumes 55 million POUNDS of uranium a year. Not TONS."

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

From: slade
24-Nov-17
I see the Obstreperous Pontificating Critical Thought Police are all giddy this am.

From: Woods Walker
24-Nov-17
Oh give 'em a break, it's just the turkey talking! ;-)

From: K Cummings
24-Nov-17
"Bingo^^^ you can count on the same cast of characters to respond every time. They’re easy to identify as their posts are filled with nary a fact and plenty an insult."

Don't forget the same lame pictures.

:)

KPC

From: Sixby
24-Nov-17
Here is how America looks at this. The common and unclean, Those that have tears in their eyes when they hear the national anthem and whose hearts cling to God and guns. We see a young Navy submariner imprisoned with no mercy or pity simply for taking a picture of the submarine he is proud to be serving on. No money involved at all. Then we see Clintons getting millions of dollars for selling a national treasure and you libs call it nothing to see. Get a grip boys. Bill, Hillery and everyone involved in this should be imprisoned and just a few years back executed for what they have done. Buttttttttttt you see no problem with supplying Russia with uranium and defend that criminal action by citing law that says they broke no law. Follow the money. They broke the law and sold national assets for personal gain using political influence to stuff millions of dollars into their pockets and not the first time. Explain a billion dollars appropriated to Haiti disappearing during Clintons time in office and no explanation ever coming forward. We see this over and over and no response from the Republicans who call the Democrats, Our Friends. God bless, Steve

From: Gray Ghost
24-Nov-17
"Buttttttttttt you see no problem with supplying Russia with uranium....blah, blah, balh"

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

From: K Cummings
24-Nov-17
Matt:

Admittedly, I haven't been paying attention to this as closely as some but I'm not sure how much and when is really the issue. It's more about who approved, profited, and who turned a blind eye to it.

If you pay a person at the bank to let you into the vault, does it matter if you get away with 200,000.00 or 200,000,000.00?

KPC

From: Gray Ghost
24-Nov-17
Kevin,

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

From: Fulldraw1972
24-Nov-17

Fulldraw1972's Link
I know it’s from the Washington Post. But I did find it interesting.

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.

From: Gray Ghost
24-Nov-17
"Per the article some uranium did go to Europe via paper at least. I am not exactly sure how to take that."

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

Matt

From: Shuteye
24-Nov-17
The Russians must have thought it was worth something, they gave the Clinton Foundation $145,000,000 for the deal. Or possibly the Russians just felt charitable.

From: Woods Walker
24-Nov-17
Just charitable Shut. They're with H>er

From: K Cummings
24-Nov-17
"Again, nobody let Uranium One "into the vault". If anything, they are just a clerk working behind the counter."

I realize you have probably made your mind up on this Matt but we'll just have to let it play out and see where half million dollar speeches and multi-million dollar donations lead.

Might be much ado about nuttin' and it might be a whole lot of sumthin'.

KPC

From: Gray Ghost
24-Nov-17
Agreed, Kevin. Waiting until all the facts are out before reaching a conclusion is always a good approach. I think several of us are guilty of not doing that in this thread.

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

From: K Cummings
24-Nov-17
Oh come on Matt, nobody would do that here.

KPC

From: Annony Mouse
24-Nov-17
It is hard for anyone who has followed the news to deny the politicization of our government under Obama where departments such as the IRS, FBI and DOJ have a taint of corruption.

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...

From: JTV
24-Nov-17
Of course GG brushes this off as "nothing to see here" with his usual wave of the hand ... his idea of facts and his above compilations are really a joke when one understands that this is about corruption and pay to play at the highest levels and not the raving of conspiracy nuts. .... just what will he say when the information of the FBI's informant blows the lid off .... I'm sure GG didnt even take the time to look at the above article from Circa and Sara Carter and view the short vids with in.... heck, they might just show how ignorant his thoughts are...... he of course would have to explain all that away, with the swipe of his hand ...

this is a long read, but it sure puts the ignorance of some vultures to shame ...

from the Hill

An FBI informant gathered extensive evidence during his six years undercover about a Russian plot to corner the American uranium market, ranging from corruption inside a U.S. nuclear transport company to Obama administration approvals that let Moscow buy and sell more atomic fuels, according to more than 5,000 pages of documents from the counterintelligence investigation.

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 an entire year before the Russian state-owned Rosatom nuclear firm won Obama administration approval for the Uranium One deal, the memos show.

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 email forwarded an article on Rosatom’s efforts to buy Uranium One through its ARMZ subsidiary. Fisk also related information from a conversation with the Canadian executives of the mining firm about their discomfort with the impending sale.

“I spoke with a senior Uranium One Executive,” Fisk wrote Campbell, detailing his personal history with some of the company’s figures. “He said that corporate Management was not even told before the announcement [of the sale] was made.

“There are a lot of concerns,” Fisk added, predicting the Canadians would exit the company with buyouts once the Russians took control. Fisk added the premium price the Russians were paying to buy a mining firm that in 2010 controlled about 20 percent of America’s uranium production seemed “strange.”

At the time, Campell was working alongside Fisk as an American consultant to Rosatom’s commercial sales arm, Tenex.

But unbeknownst to his colleagues, Campbell also was serving as an FBI informant gathering evidence that Fisk, Tenex executive Vadim Mikerin and several others were engaged in a racketeering scheme involving millions of dollars in bribes and kickbacks, plus extortion and money laundering. 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.

Justice Department spokeswoman Sarah Isgur Flores said Monday that the agency plans to brief members of Congress next week on Campbell's work, the counterintelligence investigation into Russian uranium and the nuclear bribery case. Some issues related to the case are also being reviewed by senior Justice officials, she added.

"The Department of Justice has authorized the confidential informant to disclose to the chairmen and ranking members of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, and the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, as well as staff, any information or documents he has concerning alleged corruption or bribery involving transactions in the uranium market. Until the informant publicly speaks to what he knew or knows about these matters, we are unable to respond further," she said.

Campbell’s undercover work helped FBI counterintelligence chronicle a Russian uranium strategy modeled after Moscow’s success in creating natural gas monopolies in eastern Europe that strengthened Russia’s economy and geopolitical standing after the Cold War, the officials said.

Part of the goal was to make Americans more reliant on Russian uranium before a program that converted former Soviet warheads into U.S. nuclear fuel expired in 2013, according to documents and interviews. Russia’s ambitions included building a uranium enrichment facility on U.S. soil, the documents show.

The FBI task force supervising Campbell since 2008 watched as the Obama administration made more than a half dozen decisions favorable to the Russians' plan, which ranged from approving the sale of Uranium One to removing Rosatom from export restrictions and making it easier for Moscow to win billions in new commercial uranium sales contracts. The favorable decisions occurred during a time when President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton were pursuing a public "reset" to improve relations with Moscow, a plan that fell apart after Russia invaded Ukraine.

Campbell also produced leads for the FBI about suspicious activity inside Iran’s and South Africa’s nuclear industries, the documents show.

And most importantly, it developed concrete evidence that Tenex — at its Russian leadership’s behest — had engaged in a massive racketeering scheme. That evidence led to indictments in 2014 and the convictions of several figures in 2015.

The defendants who pled guilty included Mikerin, the very man Russia sent to the United States to lead its uranium strategy, as well as the head of the American trucking company that moved Russia’s uranium around the United States.

Multiple congressional committees recently got permission from the Justice Department to interview Campbell after The Hill reported last month the existence of his informant work.

Lawmakers want to know what the FBI did with the evidence Campbell gathered in real time and whether it warned Obama and top leaders before they made the Russia-favorable decisions, like the Uranium One deal.

Since Campbell’s identity emerged in recent days, there have been several statements by Justice officials, both on the record and anonymously, casting doubt on the timing and value of his work, and specifically his knowledge about Uranium One.

The more than 5,000 pages of documents reviewed by The Hill directly conflict with some of the Justice officials’ accounts.

For instance, both Attorney General Jeff Sessions in testimony last week and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein in a letter to the Senate last month tried to suggest there was no connection between Uranium One and the nuclear bribery case. Their argument was that the criminal charges weren’t filed until 2014, while the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States' (CFIUS) approval of the Uranium One sale occurred in October 2010.

“The way I understand that matter is that the case in which Mr. Mikerin was convicted was not connected to the CFIUS problem that occurred two to three years before,” Sessions testified to the House Judiciary Committee last week, echoing Rosenstein’s letter from a few weeks earlier.

But investigative records show FBI counterintelligence recorded the first illicit payments in the bribery/kickback scheme in November 2009, a year before the CFIUS approval.

Campbell also relayed detailed information about criminal conduct throughout 2010, including the coordinates for various money laundering drops, according to his FBI debriefing reports. The evidence Campbell gathered indicated Mikerin’s corruption scheme was being directed by and benefitting more senior officials with Rosatom and Tenex back in Russia, the records show, a claim U.S. officials would make in court years later.

“There is zero doubt we had evidence of criminal activity before the CFIUS approval and that Justice knew about it through [the natural security division],” said a source with direct knowledge of the investigation.

Republican members of Congress have been angered by the Justice Department’s first answers because they conflict with the evidence already gathered in their probe.

“Attorney General Sessions seemed to say that the bribery, racketeering and money laundering offenses involving Tenex’s Vadim Mikerin occurred after the approval of the Uranium One deal by the Obama administration. But we know that the FBI’s confidential informant was actively compiling incriminating evidence as far back as 2009,” Rep. Ron DeSantis (R-Fla.) told The Hill.

“It is hard to fathom how such a transaction could have been approved without the existence of the underlying corruption being disclosed. I hope AG Sessions gets briefed about the CI and gives the Uranium One case the scrutiny it deserves,” added DeSantis, whose House Oversight and Government Reform subcommittee is one of the investigating panels.

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) sent a similar rebuke last week to Rosenstein, saying the deputy attorney general’s first response to the committee “largely missed the point” of the congressional investigations.

“The essential question is whether the Obama Justice Department provided notice of the criminal activity of certain officials before the CFIUS approval of the Uranium One deal and other government decisions that enabled the Russians to trade nuclear materials in the U.S.,” Grassley said.

Flores said Sessions stands by his testimony. "The Attorney General’s testimony is accurate. The criminal case in which Mikerin was convicted and the factual and legal requirements needed to make that case did not address the CFIUS matter," the Justice spokeswoman said.

Similar misinformation surfaced last week in articles by Reuters and Yahoo News in which officials were quoted as casting doubt that Campbell had any information about the Uranium One deal, because Tenex was a different division of Rosatom than the ARMZ subsidiary that bought the mining firm.

But Campbell’s FBI informant file shows Uranium One came up several times in 2010 as the sale was pending, partly because Tenex was Rosatom’s commercial arm and would be charged with finding markets for the new uranium being mined and enriched both in the United States and abroad.

Campbell himself was directly solicited by his colleagues to help overcome opposition to the Uranium One deal, the FBI informant files show. In an Oct. 6, 2010, email with the subject line “ARMZ + Uranium One,” Fisk forwarded a news article outlining Republican efforts to derail the sale.

“The referenced article may present a very good opportunity for Sigma [Campbell’s company] to try and remove the opposing influences, if that is something you can do,” Fisk wrote the informant, who was also a paid consultant for the company at the time.

The next day, Mikerin was sent an 11-page report laying out the larger Russian nuclear strategy and what Russia wanted to do inside the U.S. to gain advantage in the uranium market. The report cited specific concerns about the political pressure opposing Uranium One if it wasn’t overcome. Campbell intercepted the document.

“Some Republicans truly fear the entry of Russia into the U.S. market, as demonstrated by the fact that they are taking steps to block the purchase of Uranium One,” the report warned Mikerin. “This effort bears watching as it may provide clues as to the likely political reaction if a Russian entity was going to participate in the construction and operation of a uranium enrichment plant in the U.S.”

After Rosatom’s sale was approved, Uranium One officials would have direct contact with Tenex and Mikerin, some of which was witnessed by Campbell, the documents show.

For instance, Mikerin forwarded to Campbell an email in 2012 from a Uranium One executive suggesting the planned construction of a new nuclear reactor near Augusta, Ga., might prove a good opportunity for both Uranium One and Tenex to expand their business, the documents show.

Campbell’s debriefing files also show he regularly mentioned to FBI agents in 2010 a Washington entity with close ties to Bill and Hillary Clinton that was being paid millions to help expand Tenex’s business in the United States. The entity began increasing its financial support to a Clinton charitable project after it was hired by the Russians, according to the documents.

Campbell engaged in conversations with his Russian colleagues about the efforts of the Washington entity and others to gain influence with the Clintons and the Obama administration. He also listened as visiting Russians used racially tinged insults to boast about how easy they found it to win uranium business under Obama, according to a source familiar with Campbell’s planned testimony to Congress.

Uranium One was a large enough concern for the informant that he confronted one of his FBI handlers after learning the CFIUS had approved the sale and that the U.S. had given Mikerin a work visa despite the extensive evidence of his criminal activity, the source said.

The agent responded back to the informant with a comment suggesting “politics” was involved, the source familiar with Campbell’s planned testimony said.

Justice officials said federal prosecutors have no records that Campbell or his lawyer made any allegations about the Uranium One deal during his debriefings in the criminal case that started in 2013, but acknowledged he collected evidence about the mining deal during the FBI counterintelligence investigation that preceded it.

In recent days, news media including The Washington Post and Fox News anchor Shepard Smith have inaccurately reported another element of the story: that Uranium One never exported its American uranium because the Obama administration did not allow it.

However, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission authorized Uranium One to export through a third party tons of uranium to Canada for enrichment processing, and some of that product ended up in Europe, NRC documents state.

A Uranium One executive acknowledged to The Hill that 25 percent of the uranium it shipped to Canada under the third-party export license ended up with either European or Asian customers through what it known in the nuclear business as “book transfers.”

But the recent leaks that have most concerned congressional investigators occurred in a Yahoo story late Friday, in which Justice officials anonymously questioned Campbell’s credibility and suggested they had to alter their criminal case against Mikerin in 2015, eventually striking a plea deal, because they feared he would be a “disaster” as a trial witness.

The FBI informant file, however, paints a different picture. After Mikerin pleaded guilty and was sentenced to 48 months prison in December 2015, the FBI took Campbell out to a celebratory seafood dinner and delivered a handsome reward: a check for $51,046.36 dated Jan. 7, 2016, a copy of which was obtained by The Hill.

A source directly familiar with the FBI’s evidence said the primary reason prosecutors working under Rosenstein, then the U.S. attorney in Maryland, changed course in the case was because of concerns their initial indictment miscast Campbell’s role in the investigation.

The original indictments and affidavits portrayed Campbell as a “victim” who became a confidential witness after the Russians tried to “extort” him in summer 2009 into a kickback scheme, court records show.

In fact, Campbell was an informant deeply controlled by FBI counterintelligence starting when he signed a nondisclosure agreement in January 2008, more than a year before Mikerin engaged him in the criminal activity, the FBI’s records show.

Campbell was inserted inside Mikerin’s world specifically to look for criminal activity and other harmful national security actions by the Russians, starting with undercover work he performed as a consultant contracting with a lobbying firm in 2008 and then inside Tenex starting in 2009, according to documents and memos.

Campbell’s regular debriefings dating to 2008 show the nature of some of his undercover work, including making surreptitious recordings and collecting documents well before the first money laundering started inside Tenex in 2009. He also had a long history of collaboration with U.S. intelligence, including the FBI, that predated his case, sources told The Hill.

To facilitate his cover, Campbell made a cash payment in summer 2009 to a Russian consultant after he secured the Tenex consulting contract. His Russian colleagues demanded he hire the overseas consultant to better learn the company's strategy and how the Russians preferred to receive their consulting reports, sources said.

The transaction later worried prosecutors in the criminal case because they feared it might muddy their case of extortion against Mikerin because the voluntary payment was made only shortly before the kickback demands started, the sources said.

The prosecutors also faced another concern about the case unrelated to Campbell, the sources said.

When Fisk — one of the main targets of their bribery investigation — died in 2011, the FBI did not execute a grand jury subpoena to capture all of his evidence. Instead, agents asked his widow for permission to voluntarily search his computer hard drive and remove the documents the agents wanted.

The hard drive was subsequently discarded before the criminal charges were filed, leaving it unavailable for defense lawyers to search, the sources said. Defense lawyers pounced on the revelation late in the case, court records show.

At the time, Fisk was a larger than life figure inside the Russian nuclear industry, having headed the trucking firm that moved uranium across the United States on behalf of Rosatom. Campbell helped the FBI document that both Fisk, starting in 2004, and a successor, starting in 2011, at the trucking firm were paying bribes to the Russians, the records show.

During 2010, Fisk was transitioning from the trucking firm to become a key strategist for Tenex and Mikerin, advising them on the Russian nuclear industry’s aggressive push to expand its business in the United States.

Sources said the recasting of the prosecution in 2015 had much to do with avoiding exposing the extensive nature of the FBI counterintelligence operations that involved Campbell.

“This isn’t really about his credibility or work, which generated leads we relied on well into 2016. Often times, CI investigations are focused first on monitoring and stopping activity that threatens U.S. security and the consequences to later criminal case are a secondary concern,” said one source familiar with the probe. “That’s the reality of a dirty business.”

Asked whether the criminal side of the Justice Department knew about Campbell’s work, including its origins to 2008 and its possible ties to Uranium One, a source with direct knowledge said the prosecutors acquired all of Campbell’s emails as part of a 2015 agreement he signed. Justice also had access to Campbell’s emails recovered from Fisk’s computers in 2011 as well as documents Campbell gave during debriefings that started in 2008, the source added.

The sources familiar with the full body of Campbell’s work said they expect he can provide significant new information to Congress.

“Will he be able to prove that we knew Russia was engaged in criminal conduct before Uranium One was approved? You bet,” the source said. “Were the Russians using political influence and pulling political levers to try to win stuff from the U.S. government? You bet. Was he perfect? No one in this line of work is. But we were focused on much larger issues than just that.”

Campbell endured significant stress during his time undercover and suffered a handful of episodes related to drinking, resulting in two misdemeanor reckless driving charges and one misdemeanor driving under the influence, his lawyer said.

Attorney Victoria Toensing told The Hill that the FBI was fully aware of the drinking incidents and continued to use her client for many years after.

“Until he began working undercover for the U.S. government in his early 60s, Mr. Campbell had an unblemished driving record,” she said. “However, the pressure of living a double life and being threatened by the Russians if he violated their trust took a toll.

“Additionally, there were numerous occasions where he was required to meet socially with the Russians, who were prodigious imbibers of vodka. Any refusal by him to participate could have compromised his cover. Mr. Campbell has not had any driving or drinking issue since 2014 when he ceased working undercover."

From: slade
24-Nov-17
Come on JTV, by now you must know the Pontificators use the old consider the source excuse for their balderdash.

From: Gray Ghost
24-Nov-17
LOL. the first sentence in JTV article is:

"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

From: JTV
24-Nov-17
with the swipe of his hand ...... lol .... damn dude, can you make even more of a fool of yourself ??

From: Fulldraw1972
24-Nov-17

Fulldraw1972's Link
Here is what the US has done in Uranium production. Uranium One production has dropped way off. But then again total US production is down huge as well.

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

From: Sixby
24-Nov-17
Production on the downside should result in no sale. Sooooooo the afterfact is not relative to the criminal act. I wonder how this relates to the Obama confiscation of Oregon and Nevada ranches by force. Another weaponizing of government agencies that resulted in imprisonment and death of US citizens. Were uranium deposits partially to blame? Why is it so hard for some to see that a felony is in monetary terms judged in the thousands of dollars. Not in the millions. CAn anyone convince us that Russian payoffs to the Clintons in excess of 140 million dollars was done because of the goodness of their hearts? This is the crux of the matter. Follow the money.

God bless, Steve

25-Nov-17

Ryan from Boone's Link

From: JTV2
25-Nov-17
"Fact check" a left wing site .....the libs/dems are doing evety every thing they can to down play this .... trying to save their asses ... it aint working , not for those with common sense ... Clintons, money, Obama, pay to play, corruption, criminal acts .. its all there ...some areto damn stupid to acknowledge it ...

From: Beendare
25-Nov-17
Uranium ones production drop-off; A turd....or the new owner holding back production to drive up the cost? You can't make a judgment on this without knowing the market.

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.

From: Gray Ghost
25-Nov-17
Beendare,

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

Matt

From: Beendare
26-Nov-17
Pretty obvious isn't it Matt? You do understand supply and demand I assume. More demand than supply so the US is an importer. Why would we want to give up ANY production when we just have to buy it back?

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.

From: trublucolo
26-Nov-17
"and frankly not worth my entertaining the views of someone so blind to this behavior. "

Not blind to, just willfully ignoring.

From: Gray Ghost
26-Nov-17
"Why would we want to give up ANY production when we just have to buy it back?"

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

From: JTV
26-Nov-17

JTV's Link

26-Nov-17

Ryan from Boone's Link
Before you disparage the clinton foundation, you should probably view this link. Its a NON partisan charity navigator that rates all charities. Charity watch is another one and it also ranked the foundation as one of the highest rated for transparency and efficiency. It won't change the mind of the ignorant, but maybe it will shed some light on those doubting the authenticity of the foundation. I realize that some of us need a bogey man and in this case its the dreaded clinton foundation. However, facts will show its rated highly in its efficiency, how it helps those in need and as falsely reported above it does indeed show each and every donor that donates to the foundation. Yes the accept money from foreign institutions and governments. Those same institutions and governments also get assistance from the foundation. There is nothing inherently corrupt or illegal about it. Even the American Red Cross gets donations from overseas. The Clintons’ surge in wealth since they left the White House in 2001 — largely from hefty speaking fees and book advances — and their highly visible involvement in their foundation can leave the impression that they’re profiting from the organization, however, about 85 to 90 percent of the organization’s expenditures go toward charitable programs. The rest to salaries of those working for the foundation and its operating expenses. Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton receive no compensation from their work on the foundation’s board of directors, according to tax documents. The same documents withheld by trump which would clearly show if he does or does not profit from his charity, by the way. Transparency is a key to what the foundation is. Any and all questions are easily answered and verifiable. By all standards it is a finely run charitable foundation.

From: slade
26-Nov-17

slade's Link
More chickens headed to the roost

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.

From: Bentstick81
26-Nov-17
One thing fro sure R from boone. You have proven that you dems a crazier than owl shit. You dems are going to secure Trump another term. People are seeing you dems, at your finest, trying to take away a person that they VOTED in as POTUS, and using our tax dollars, to boot. People will remember the stupid $hit, you dems are trying to pull, come next POTUS Election. Thanks for your support. 8^)))

From: JTV
26-Nov-17
Damn Boonie, your cat scratch crazy ... "Disparage the Clinton Foundation" ??? .. dont you know that damn thing is a money Laundering front for the Clinton Crime Cartel....

From: Mike in CT
26-Nov-17

Mike in CT's Link
Jeff & Jeff,

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

From: Annony Mouse
26-Nov-17
Gee, Mike...did you have do nuke Ryan from the boonies ?

From: JTV
26-Nov-17
Mike/CT ... that kinda blows Boonies assertions and BS right out of the water .... its gonna leave a mark, thats for sure .... ouch !!

From: Bentstick81
26-Nov-17
I swear. You can walk down a street, and talk to a person you meet, and tell, in just a few words, if they are a democrat, or not. They are all for, slobbering their ignorance, for everyone to see. True morons.

From: brunse
26-Nov-17
Please Boone. Charity navigator is a Clinton initiative. Nice try. Might as well give the Russian mob four stars.

From: bigeasygator
27-Nov-17
Anybody have any idea on the economics of the uranium industry and uranium production? Seeing as there is no strategic significance to the production given that it is such a small fraction of the uranium market and that there are no export rights associated with the reserves, paying $140 million in off the books payments (as alleged by many) to get a green light for what was essentially a billion dollar deal just seems highly questionable from a business perspective. Given that there was no reason for the deal to be opposed and that there were plenty of other individuals who had to greenlight the deal, it seems highly unnecessary as well.

From: JTV
27-Nov-17
there is plenty of evidence for the deal NOT to have gone thru .... this is all about pay to play with the Clinton and coverups from the Obama administration with help from the FBI ....the collusion runs very deep here

from Circa News/Sara Carter Fifteen months before the 13 members of the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, known as CFIUS, approved the sale of the Canadian company Uranium One to Russia’s nuclear arm giant Rosatom, the FBI began investigating persons who were connected to the Russian state corporation. The FBI said in court documents and in interviews conducted by Circa that by 2010 they had gathered enough evidence to prove that Rosatom-connected officials were engaged in a global bribery scheme that included kickbacks and money laundering. FBI officials said the investigation could have prevented the sale of Uranium One, which controlled 20 percent of U.S. uranium supply under U.S. law.

My client was providing information for a couple years before this really got voted on by CFIUS, and here’s the rub. High-ranking law enforcement officials in the Obama Administration knew that there was corruption in this company and that information about the corruption in this Russian entity never made it to CFIUS, evidently, because CFIUS authorized the purchase in 2010.

Victoria Toensing, lawyer of the informant ..

From: bigeasygator
27-Nov-17

bigeasygator's Link
If the allegations above our true, it only confirms how unnecessary a $145 million dollar payment was to approve the deal seeing as no one on the CFIUS knew about the investigation (...”that information about the corruption in this Russian entity never made it to CFIUS, evidently”). The deal was worth $1.3 bln. That payment is equal to more than 10% of the return on the investment. That’s why I asked if anyone was familiar with the economics of uranium producers. Best as I can tell the WACC of uranium producers is around 10-12.5% and this is a good proxy for the type of return you would expect on this acquisition. The alleged pay to play payment would wipe out pretty much all of your returns. It’s just dumb business and doesn’t make any sense, unless there was another compelling reason to pursue the deal. No one has laid out what that reason is.

From: Beendare
27-Nov-17
That Charity navigator is a joke. Transparency in the Clinton admin; So then why don't we know who the donors are?

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.

From: Gray Ghost
28-Nov-17
"There is enough there already there for a Guilty."

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

From: TD
28-Nov-17
No, you and BEG are trying to return focus to the uranium deal itself. And trying to work out a profit and loss like it was some common company and not a Russian agency who couldn't care less about a profit. This was for better or worse a global power play. Putin does not need to show stockholders a profit. A person would have to be intentionally naive to think this deal was not with Putin at the controls.

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.....

From: bigeasygator
28-Nov-17
"This was for better or worse a global power play"

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.

From: Shuteye
28-Nov-17
") 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"

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

From: Beendare
28-Nov-17
Well the guys looking the other way have obviously never heard of OPEC.

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....

From: bigeasygator
28-Nov-17
Help me understand what the Canadian exportation of Canadian uranium have to do with the uranium controlled by the U.S. that is at question related to the Uranium One deal?

From: bigeasygator
28-Nov-17
Beendare, I'm pretty familiar with OPEC. Help me understand how the .2% of world uranium production related to the U.S. holdings of Uranium One amounts to a large global share?

From: Gray Ghost
28-Nov-17
BEG,

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

From: bigeasygator
28-Nov-17

bigeasygator's Link
The .2% came from sources that said the United States provides 2% of the world’s uranium output and of that production, Uranium One one is responsible for about 10% of domestic production. It actually appears that Uranium One does indeed only produce 2% of the total United States supply. So you’re right...should be more like .04% of the current uranium market.

From: Grey Ghost
28-Nov-17
I guess that cornering the world market thing isn't working out too well.

Matt

From: bigeasygator
28-Nov-17
I’d say it isn’t...certainly not as it relates to the US uranium in question. Usually when there’s something like a pay-to-play scenario, it’s for a reason that makes actual business sense. Still waiting for the “why”? $145 mln would erode all the value in the deal for what amounts to .04% of the world market (that, oh, by the way, they have no control over exportation of). But as others have suggested, maybe I should stop viewing this deal in a logical, rational way.

From: TD
28-Nov-17

TD's Link
So you're basing what looks to be graft and corruption with the Clintons and likely Obama's administration on if the deal makes Putin a profit or not?

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....

From: JTV
28-Nov-17
with a wave of his hand... GG will still schluff this off ... ^^

From: bad karma
28-Nov-17
Someone needs to explain why one would give $145 million to a charitable organization that spends peanuts on actual charity, but a fortune to the namesakes of the foundation.

From: bigeasygator
29-Nov-17
TD,

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.

From: TD
29-Nov-17
"By June 2009, a little over a year after the star-studded evening in Toronto, Uranium One’s stock was in free-fall, down 40 percent. Mr. Dzhakishev, the head of Kazatomprom, had just been arrested on charges that he illegally sold uranium deposits to foreign companies, including at least some of those won by Mr. Giustra’s UrAsia and now owned by Uranium One."

"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.

From: Dirk Diggler
29-Nov-17
Oh yeah I totally buy it. The Russians giving money to the Clinton Foundation to save whales or something.

From: bigeasygator
29-Nov-17
You have no idea how much value was at stake with the deal. When deals are made, you negotiate and, as you can imagine, the buyer wants to pay as little for whatever they're buying as possible and the seller wants to get as much as possible from the buyer as possible.

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.

29-Nov-17

Spike Bull 's Link
Love that drip, drip, drip.....

  • Sitka Gear