Uranium One

  1. Uranium One informant makes Clinton allegations in testimony | TheHill

    An FBI informant connected to the Uranium One controversy told three congressional committees in written testimony that Moscow routed millions of dollars to America with the expectation it would be used to benefit Bill Clinton's charitable efforts while Secretary of State Hillary Clinton quarterbacked a "reset" in US-Russian relations.
    FBI informant on Uranium One Breaks Silence Today | Sara A. Carter

    An informant who spent years gathering information on the Russian energy and uranium market industry for the FBI, met staff members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, House Oversight, and House Intelligence Committees on Wednesday. He gave explosive testimony on his years as an undercover informant providing information to the FBI on Russian criminal networks operating in the United States. He also contends in his testimony, and written briefs, to the FBI that Russia attempted to hide its ongoing aid to help sustain Iran's nuclear industry, at the time the Obama administration approved the sale of 20 percent of U.S. uranium mining rights to Russia.
  2. Visit itsybitsy profile page

    About itsybitsy, BSN

    Joined: Jul '16; Posts: 416; Likes: 244
    Specialty: NICU

    11 Comments

  3. by   heron
    You're losing the argument over the Nunes memo, so start a thread about Hillary Clinton. Whataboutism at its finest! Now i know you're a professional troll.
    Last edit by heron on Feb 8
  4. by   MunoRN
    At first blush I would normally believe something shady about Clinton could be true, because I do think she's at least a little shady, but the problem with this prid-pro-quo story is that it lacks any prid-pro-quo.

    Correct me if I'm wrong, but this is what the accusation seems to be: Hillary Clinton benefited from people who were connected to a Russian uranium mining company, Clinton then facilitated that company's acquisition of US uranium, and as a result gave 20% of our Uranium supply to Russia.

    The problem is no portion of that sentence appears to be true.

    The deal in question involved giving Uranium to Russia:
    The deal in question involved mining rights, and only mining rights, no export rights were included in the deal. The involvement of the Russian owned company is limited to mining the ore, from there they have no choice but to transfer it to other companies, in this case American and Canadian owned, for enrichment and export. There's been no evidence that any of the uranium ended up in Russia.

    Clinton facilitated a Russian mining company's acquisition of uranium:
    What this refers to is that a representative of 16 departments sit on a panel that reviews foreign investments for national security purposes, and the acquisition of a controlling share of a company that had mining rights for uranium came before the panel. Since the acquisition involved no export rights, there was no justification for flagging the deal.

    Considering the agencies that would have objected if there was a reasonable security threat approved of the deal, it doesn't make much sense to say that the only reason the State department didn't oppose it was due to a paid favor.

    Hillary Clinton benefited from people connected to the Russian mining company:
    This is the one part that is at least sort of true. People at least indirectly associated with the Russian company did donate to the Clinton Foundation, the problem is that Clinton doesn't directly benefit from the foundation, Bill and Chelsea sit on the board, but neither take a salary. So instead of regular lobbying, where money is given more directly to politicians, it appears there were possible attempts to curry favor by donating to charity, which actually seems far better than the normal way lobbying works.

    The Clinton Foundation, among other things, helps coordinate the largest initiative to combat waterborne diseases in Africa, which kill 4,000 children per day, and not quickly or pleasantly either.

    So what we're left with is that Hillary Clinton had reason to be friendly to people related to a Russian mining company for donating to what I assume is her preferred charity. And the State department did not obstruct a share acquisition by that company either because Clinton was pulling strings for them or because by all accounts there was no valid reason to oppose it.

    So at the worst, in exchange for doing something we were going to do anyway, a bunch of money went to prevent children from dying an agonizing death.
    I'm OK with that.
  5. by   Lil Nel
    Quote from heron
    You're losing the argument over the Nunes memo, so start a thread about Hillary Clinton. Whataboutism at its finest! Now i know tou're you're a professional troll
    Aww. I think itsy bitsy just enjoys sipping hard on the pixie stick and gulping down whatever talking points are put forth by Sean Hannity, and Company.

    It's kind of funny, really. It is so obvious, that it makes me laugh.

    I don't take this person seriously. He/she is a jokester!
  6. by   BCgradnurse
    Methinks someone is getting desperate here, and is just trying to distract from Trump's foibles. Yawn. Not going to work. It would be funny if it wasn't so pathetic.
  7. by   toomuchbaloney
    Personally, this will be the extent of my participation in this pathetic thread. Conspiracy theory and propagation of political lies is not very becoming for a nurse who is supposed to be trained in assessment and critical thinking.

    This thread should be retitled "desperate deflection from discussion of dotard".
  8. by   elkpark
    Quote from toomuchbaloney
    Personally, this will be the extent of my participation in this pathetic thread. Conspiracy theory and propagation of political lies is not very becoming for a nurse who is supposed to be trained in assessment and critical thinking.

    This thread should be retitled "desperate deflection from discussion of dotard".
    (Ooooh, nice alliteration!)
  9. by   itsybitsy
    Quote from heron
    You're losing the argument over the Nunes memo, so start a thread about Hillary Clinton. Whataboutism at its finest! Now i know you're a professional troll.
    Quote from Lil Nel
    Aww. I think itsy bitsy just enjoys sipping hard on the pixie stick and gulping down whatever talking points are put forth by Sean Hannity, and Company.

    It's kind of funny, really. It is so obvious, that it makes me laugh.

    I don't take this person seriously. He/she is a jokester!
    Quote from BCgradnurse
    Methinks someone is getting desperate here, and is just trying to distract from Trump's foibles. Yawn. Not going to work. It would be funny if it wasn't so pathetic.
    Quote from toomuchbaloney
    Personally, this will be the extent of my participation in this pathetic thread. Conspiracy theory and propagation of political lies is not very becoming for a nurse who is supposed to be trained in assessment and critical thinking.


    This thread should be retitled "desperate deflection from discussion of dotard".

    Please stay on topic, this is a different story. And please, stop name calling.

    Douglas Campbell testified Wednesday, 2/7/2018 on this.
    Last edit by itsybitsy on Feb 8
  10. by   itsybitsy
    He collected over 5,000 documents and briefs over a six year period, some of which detail efforts by Moscow to route money to the Clinton Foundation
    "The contract called for four payments of $750,000 over twelve months. APCO was expected to give assistance free of charge to the Clinton Global Initiative as part of their effort to create a favorable environment to ensure the Obama administration made affirmative decisions on everything from Uranium One to the U.S.-Russia Civilian Nuclear Cooperation agreement." -William Campbell
    An extremely important aspect of Campbell's timeline is that the Obama FBI , headed by Robert Mueller, knew of the bribery scheme with the transportation company before approving the Uranium One deal which would have utilized TLI for transporting the mined uranium.
    FBI Informant Testifies: Moscow Routed Millions To Clinton Foundation In "Russian Uranium Dominance Strategy" | Zero Hedge

    The deal should have never been made in the first place. But for whatever reason, pay-to-play is okay when you are selling OUR countries Uranium to even just benefit your foundation.

    For one, that was not money, that if the deal didn't have the background it did, that should not have gone to the Clinton Foundation.

    Secondly, why CHOOSE the Clinton Foundation to pay money to? Why was the foundation being paid for for the sale of US uranium mining rights?!
  11. by   itsybitsy
    Quote from MunoRN
    The involvement of the Russian owned company is limited to mining the ore, from there they have no choice but to transfer it to other companies, in this case American and Canadian owned, for enrichment and export.
    Tenex is Russian owned, by Rosatom. Tenex owns ARMZ. By ARMZ owning the mining rights (51% of Uranium One), who are controlled by Tenex, who has a history of bribery and racketeering. What the concern was, was the possibility of exporting it, which the Obama administration claims that the uranium would never leave the country, but it was revealed that the uranium traveled through Canada on a trucking company, into Europe, then to Russia.

    Quote from MunoRN
    Since the acquisition involved no export rights, there was no justification for flagging the deal.
    I'm not sure what you mean, whether there were no rights to export on the deal or there were no existence of any rights or no rights in regards to exporting on the deal. The deal specifically involved mining rights, that were given to Russia - 20% of it. The Russian company has a history of handling uranium to Iran, for their nuclear reactor program, with bribery. When WE import 90% of our uranium, how does that work out, and why would the deal be accepted?!

    Quote from MunoRN
    it appears there were possible attempts to curry favor by donating to charity, which actually seems far better than the normal way lobbying works.

    So at the worst, in exchange for doing something we were going to do anyway, a bunch of money went to prevent children from dying an agonizing death.
    I'm OK with that.
    It shouldn't have been a deal in the first place, with the past bribery and racketeering Tenex had been involved with previously, as documented per Campbell. Additionally, if we are selling our uranium, why are we giving that money to the Clinton Foundation? That's not money that should have gone to that foundation, when the product came from American soil. That, in any case, is American's money, not what the Clinton Foundation decides to do with it.
    Last edit by itsybitsy on Feb 8
  12. by   MunoRN
    Quote from itsybitsy
    FBI Informant Testifies: Moscow Routed Millions To Clinton Foundation In "Russian Uranium Dominance Strategy" | Zero Hedge

    The deal should have never been made in the first place. But for whatever reason, pay-to-play is okay when you are selling OUR countries Uranium to even just benefit your foundation.
    The "deal" in question was that there was a company with uranium mining rights (UrAsia) in which Rosatom was a minority owner through their mining subsidiary, ARMZ. Rosatom then purchased additional shares, bringing their ownership to 51%, this triggered a review of their acquisition to become a majority shareholder based on national security criteria. The company that Rosatom had become a majority owner of held no export licenses, and since the only valid national security threat that this panel would be able to oppose the deal on would be the ability of the Russian owned company to export the uranium themselves, where it can't be directly controlled by non-Russian entities, there was no valid reason to oppose the deal. Blocking the deal would have been a clear abuse of their scope of power.

    Clinton sold no uranium to Russia, she did not own or have any stake in UrAsia and there's been no evidence that any of the uranium ended up in Russia.

    Quote from itsybitsy
    For one, that was not money, that if the deal didn't have the background it did, that should not have gone to the Clinton Foundation.

    Secondly, why CHOOSE the Clinton Foundation to pay money to? Why was the foundation being paid for for the sale of US uranium mining rights?!
    The Clinton foundation did not own or have any control us US mining rights.
  13. by   MunoRN
    Quote from itsybitsy
    Tenex is Russian owned, by Rosatom. Tenex owns ARMZ. By ARMZ owning the mining rights (51% of Uranium One), who are controlled by Tenex, who has a history of bribery and racketeering. What the concern was, was the possibility of exporting it, which the Obama administration claims that the uranium would never leave the country, but it was revealed that the uranium traveled through Canada on a trucking company, into Europe, then to Russia.
    The corruption charges against Rosatom manager came to light after the panel reviewed the deal, and there would have been no basis for them to oppose the deal even if they had known about it, there are separate processes already in place for investigating corruption charges and cancelling any transactions that are justified.

    The fate of the uranium in question didn't change with Rosatom's majority buyout, and question before the panel was whether or not a Russian company could now control where the uranium went, which they couldn't since they didn't have an export license, the uranium was first transferred to non-Russian controlled companies initially for enrichment in Canada, then back to the US, then on to Europe. There's been no evidence it found it's way to Russia, maybe you could provide a source for that.

    Quote from itsybitsy
    I'm not sure what you mean, whether there were no rights to export on the deal or there were no existence of any rights or no rights in regards to exporting on the deal. The deal specifically involved mining rights, that were given to Russia - 20% of it. The Russian company has a history of handling uranium to Iran, for their nuclear reactor program, with bribery. When WE import 90% of our uranium, how does that work out, and why would the deal be accepted?!
    The deal involved no transfer of export rights to a Russian company. It involved the transfer of majority ownership of a company that is only able to mine the uranium, not transfer it to anyone or anywhere else except to other companies that do have export licenses.


    Quote from itsybitsy
    It shouldn't have been a deal in the first place, with the past bribery and racketeering Tenex had been involved with previously, as documented per Campbell. Additionally, if we are selling our uranium, why are we giving that money to the Clinton Foundation? That's not money that should have gone to that foundation, when the product came from American soil. That, in any case, is American's money, not what the Clinton Foundation decides to do with it.
    The US at least in theory utilizes a free market economy, this is not an economy where the government essentially owns everything and therefore gets to decide what decisions companies make (that's called communism). If a private company who owns mining rights wants to sell those rights, we have some ability to interfere with that sale but only with sufficient cause.

close