The headline on the website Pravda trumpeted President Vladimir V. Putin’s latest coup, its nationalistic fervor recalling an era when its precursor served as the official mouthpiece of the Kremlin: “Russian Nuclear Energy Conquers the World.”
The article, in January 2013, detailed how the Russian atomic energy agency, Rosatom, had taken over a Canadian company with uranium-mining stakes stretching from Central Asia to the American West. The deal made Rosatom one of the world’s largest uranium producers and brought Mr. Putin closer to his goal of controlling much of the global uranium supply chain.
But the untold story behind that story is one that involves not just the Russian president, but also a former American president and a woman who would like to be the next one.
At the heart of the tale are several men, leaders of the Canadian mining industry, who have been major donors to the charitable endeavors of former President Bill Clinton and his family. Members of that group built, financed and eventually sold off to the Russians a company that would become known as Uranium One.
Beyond mines in Kazakhstan that are among the most lucrative in the world, the sale gave the Russians control of one-fifth of all uranium production capacity in the United States. Since uranium is considered a strategic asset, with implications for national security, the deal had to be approved by a committee composed of representatives from a number of United States government agencies. Among the agencies that eventually signed off was the State Department, then headed by Mr. Clinton’s wife, Hillary Rodham Clinton.
As the Russians gradually assumed control of Uranium One in three separate transactions from 2009 to 2013, Canadian records show, a flow of cash made its way to the Clinton Foundation. Uranium One’s chairman used his family foundation to make four donations totaling $2.35 million. Those contributions were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons, despite an agreement Mrs. Clinton had struck with the Obama White House to publicly identify all donors. Other people with ties to the company made donations as well.
And shortly after the Russians announced their intention to acquire a majority stake in Uranium One, Mr. Clinton received $500,000 for a Moscow speech from a Russian investment bank with links to the Kremlin that was promoting Uranium One stock.
View attachment 67205010
Frank Giustra, right, a mining financier, has donated $31.3 million
to the foundation run by former President Bill Clinton, left.
At the time, both Rosatom and the United States government made promises intended to ease concerns about ceding control of the company’s assets to the Russians. Those promises have been repeatedly broken, records show.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/u...ssed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html?_r=0
But Schweizer and the Times presented no evidence that the donations influenced Clinton’s official actions.
The fact is, Clinton was one of nine voting members on the foreign investments committee, which also includes the secretaries of the Treasury, Defense, Homeland Security, Commerce and Energy, the attorney general, and representatives from two White House offices — the United States Trade Representative and the Office of Science and Technology Policy. (Separately, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission needed to approve (and did approve) the transfer of two uranium recovery licenses as part of the sale.)
All one has to ask oneself was this decision by SoS and the other members of the Committee on Foreign Investment In the United States (CFIUS). Was this decision in the best interests of the US nation and there by in the best interests of the US electorate? In this case I'd have to say no, it wasn't.
All one has to ask is did this deal "left Russia controlling a large portion of America’s strategic uranium supply" ? The answer seems to be yes to this.
Is leaving the Russians in control of large portions of the US uranium supply in the best interests of the US or its electorate? The answer to this would seem to be no.
So it's no surprise really that the electorate is pissed off at this bad deal. I'd chalk it up politicians negotiating and deciding these things.
The US has 2% of the worlds Uranium. It's really not critical, especially since the deal also stipulates that none of that Uranium is allowed to be exported (and why would they? The US imports most of its Uranium).
A bunch of government agencies had no problem with it. But you hear 'uranium/Clinton/Russia' and it sends you into fantasyland.
Again, the real issue here is Trump and his utter cluelessness about Russia, and his close ties to Putin and potential debt to Russian Oligarchs.
Maybe those tax returns aren't being released for a reason.
When the Uranium One deal was approved, the geopolitical backdrop was far different from today’s. The Obama administration was seeking to “reset” strained relations with Russia. The deal was strategically important to Mr. Putin, who shortly after the Americans gave their blessing sat down for a staged interview with Rosatom’s chief executive, Sergei Kiriyenko. “Few could have imagined in the past that we would own 20 percent of U.S. reserves,” Mr. Kiriyenko told Mr. Putin.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/u...s-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html
That is just another slanted hit piece take that leaves out much of the truth and adds lies like "Clinton had veto power" to spice it up even more.
No ‘Veto Power’ for Clinton on Uranium Deal
A NYT slanted hit piece??? That would a first for that direction of slant.
And the contributions to the Clinton Foundation?
And Bill's speaking fees to foreign entities with business before his wife?
You don't think Rosatom was the only one do you?
You people really need to be more alert when reading fact checkers.
In this case they used the typical trick of disproving a claim that was never made.
"... Schweizer and the Times presented no evidence that the donations influenced Clinton’s official actions."
That's because Schweizer never claimed to have such evidence.
Schweizer acknowledged that she didn't have veto power because only the President had that.
But did Hillary approve of it or not?
Did Bubba make some serious bucks on the deal?
Did Bubba already have a history of making bucks from places like Kazakhstan pushing their Uranium interests?
Yes.
On this, what Schweizer had was 2 + 2 and unbiased people know that suggests 4.
Especially when dealing with those 2 and their history.
We already knew that Hillary's 'Russian Reset' was a failure, ever since they botched the translation and had that stupid button. Things didn't get any better thereafter. Then came this ill-conceived uranium deal, and now it seems they are regretting it.
I understand that you'd much rather take in isolation Trumps misunderstanding and / or misstatement. The root of the discussion includes the Russian uranium deal, so it would be fair to include a bit of how we got here in this discussion, a context.
So the Russians control 20% of the US reserves, which amounts to about 0.4% of the worlds supply...and it's not allowed to leave the US.
If there is ever a shooting war, I think we can be pretty sure Russia won't be exporting the Uranium ore out of the country in their carry on luggage, given uranium ore is about 0.5% Uranium.
Tell me what you are outraged about again?
Given the such scant sources of uranium that the US has, it's the right and smart thing to give it away to the Russians? How does that make sense form the strategic perspective?
What of the part of the deal where The Clinton Foundation (i.e. Hill & Bill) gain millions as part of the deal.
Yeah, some grease to make the slow work of the CFIUS go a little faster.
It wasn't given away.
No one else thought it was a problem.
Just another example of Hillary Derangement Syndrome.
Boo! Benghazi!
Again, ignoring the corruption of the Clinton Foundation and their influx of related funds. See post reply to Polgara.
Again, it wasn't given away.
No one else had a problem with it...except Clinton haters.
Doesn't matter whether it was given away or not, it matters if it is in the best interests of the nation and the people, a point, I notice, that you've not addressed.
How is it in the nation's best interests to turn over that much control of US uranium to the Russians.
And why was it that the Clinton Foundation's influx of large contributions of parties directly related to the Russian uranium deal anyway?
Seems to be far too much of a coincidence. Keep things moving along in the right direction for this deal's approval?
Again, it's not under Russian control. They can't even export it.
But it's Uranium and Russia and Clinton and OHMYGOD!'
Ownership is control. One must ask why the Russians are so interested in this acquisition.
How is it in the nation's best interests to turn over that much control of US uranium to the Russians.
And why was it that the Clinton Foundation's influx of large contributions of parties directly related to the Russian uranium deal anyway?
Seems to be far too much of a coincidence. Keep things moving along in the right direction for this deal's approval?
Except that Hillary could not have blocked it if she wanted to so where is the quid pro quo? The deal would have gone thru with or without the Clintons. There was none. Hilary was only one of 7 votes.
The best you can say is that the Clinton's may have misrepresented any power they had over the deal and took the money fro their charity because the givers thought they were buying her.. I'm pretty sure that is not illegal or even unsavory. Hilary got money from Wall Street and she is still going to raise their taxes and increase scrutiny if she can get it through Congress. She does not let money buy influence in my estimation. It is certainly true here. That to me is a good thing not a flaw. Taking the money for charity and doing what she wants anyway is a good way to stop the rampant bribery that pervades our system. You do know that is true, don't you?
I see this thread has been hijacked. Is Trump that indefensible?Again, ignoring the corruption of the Clinton Foundation and their influx of related funds.
Simpleχity;1066149982 said:I see this thread has been hijacked. Is Trump that indefensible?
Indeed he is... Trump Humiliates Himself On National TV By Not Knowing Russia Is Already In Ukraine
Absolutely stunning stupidity. Not even Dukakis was this inept and clumsy.
Ownership is control. One must ask why the Russians are so interested in this acquisition.
How is it in the nation's best interests to turn over that much control of US uranium to the Russians.
And why was it that the Clinton Foundation's influx of large contributions of parties directly related to the Russian uranium deal anyway?
Seems to be far too much of a coincidence. Keep things moving along in the right direction for this deal's approval?
What about the other 6 people who voted to allow the deal? Hillary was only one vote and had no veto power. Hillary could ot have stopped the deal if she wanted to.
What about the other 6 people who voted to allow the deal? Hillary was only one vote and had no veto power. Hillary could ot have stopped the deal if she wanted to.
That’s one of the many revelations from a 56-page report released late Sunday titled “From Russia with Money: Hillary Clinton, the Russian Reset, and Cronyism” by the non-partisan government watchdog group, the Government Accountability Institute (GAI). Breitbart Executive Chairman Stephen K. Bannon holds the same title in GAI and Breitbart News Senior Editor-at-Large Peter Schweizer serves as GAI’s president.
Report: Hillary Clinton’s Campaign Mgr John Podesta Sat on Board of Company that Bagged $35 Million from Putin-Connected Russian Govt Fund
What about all the money that the Clinton Foundation gain at the same time from the same people that were looking to get this deal?
And it gets even more interesting.[
All these Hillary related people making money off of this, and the Clinton Foundation as well, this all seems extremely unusual, as well as down right suspicious. Wouldn't you agree? (Oh never mind. I think I know your answer on this).
Since Hillary had no real power to stop or approve the sale there can be no quid pro quo involved in those contributions. "Suspicion" is not a crime although Breitbart would like to make you think it is. After all is is "the Clintons".
PS. I find the claim that "Breitbarts GAI" is non-partisan EXTREMELY suspicious if not an outright lie. If they will lie about their affiliation what else do they lie about?
That doesn't really alter the fact that money from the same people in the deal gave to the Clinton Foundation, nor to the Clinton campaign manager. This stinks.
What do you call it when the government makes a decision, and related people and organizations just happen to significantly financially benefit from it?
I'de call it Dick Cheney and Haliburton :lol:
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?