KER Politics – Sat 10 Feb, 2018

Uranium One, Addendum to Segment 8 from The Epoch Tmes

Infographic: The Uranium One Scandal

How President Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton aided Russia’s quest for global nuclear dominance
February 9, 2018 12:01 pm Last Updated: February 9, 2018 2:15 pm

In 2010, the Obama administration granted approval to Russia’s atomic agency, Rosatom, to acquire a majority stake in Uranium One. The deal was controversial because the Canadian mining company at the time controlled 20 percent of all uranium mining capacity in the United States.

Given the national security implications, the deal required approval by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS), which included the State Department, then headed by Hillary Clinton.

Russia had well announced its plans to corner the global uranium market as a way to exert political control over other countries. As early as 2006, Russia announced it would spend $10 billion to grow Russia’s global uranium production capacity by 600 percent.

Uranium is a key component for nuclear weapons as well as nuclear energy. A July 2011 report from the U.S. Energy Information Administration revealed that American nuclear power plants relied on imports for 92 percent of their uranium supply. Twenty-three percent was imported from Russia.

So why did President Barack Obama and the State Department headed by Hillary Clinton approve the deal that weakened America’s security and energy independence?

The Epoch Times, using public sources, including the book “Clinton Cash” by Peter Schweizer, has mapped out the connections and events related to the Uranium One acquisition by Russia.

It shows that while the State Department under Hillary Clinton was considering approving the deal, as part of the CFIUS approval process, Russia and key stakeholders in the deal paid millions to the Clinton Foundation.

Bill Clinton himself traveled to Moscow just months before the deal was approved to meet with Vladimir Putin. Clinton was also paid $500,000 for a speech he gave in Moscow by Renaissance Capital, an investment firm with an interest in the Uranium One deal and ties to Putin.

(Click on image to enlarge map)

The FBI at the time was aware that the Russian authorities had staged a large-scale operation to blackmail and extort U.S. companies connected to uranium production and transportation.

The agency also had a well-placed source working in the uranium industry that provided extensive evidence of bribery and corruption.

However, the investigation was killed in 2015 by FBI Director James Comey, and the key informant was given a gag order and prevented from talking to Congress by Obama’s attorney general, Loretta Lynch.

That gag order was lifted by Attorney General Jeff Sessions last year, and three congressional committees interviewed FBI informant William Campbell on Feb. 7.

He revealed how the Russian government used an American lobbying firm, APCO, to funnel millions of dollars to the Clinton Foundation’s Global Initiative, The Hill reported on Feb. 7.

In December, Attorney General Jeff Sessions had announced it is revisiting evidence obtained by the FBI in an investigation into the Uranium One Deal.

On Jan. 12, the DOJ unsealed an 11-count indictment of a former co-president of a Maryland-based transportation company for his alleged role in the bribery of a Russian official connected to Russia’s State Atomic Energy Corporation.

Jim McKinneyAl Korelin

  1. On February 10, 2018 at 9:42 am,
    CFS says:

    Some of the bribe money to enable the Uranium One sale was paid to the Clinton Foundation. The Clinton Foundation is a 501c3 charitable entity.
    The US law specifically denies the ability of such tax free entity to engage in political activities. However, the Clinton Foundation paid for travel and Hotels for Hillary while running for President. How come that was not a violation of US law on at least two counts: It was outside of the supposed mandate of the charity; it was a political contribution.
    If that is not bad enough, how about the foreign original of the funds which is also forbidden for political elections?
    How is it not possible for Hillary not to have violated , 52 USC 30101?
    How about the filing of a false or misleading campaign report?
    Hillary remains an unindicted criminal.

    • On February 10, 2018 at 9:57 am,
      Big Al says:

      Interesting comment, CFS, food for thought and thank you.

  2. On February 10, 2018 at 9:53 am,
    CFS says:

    For those not able to look up US Code:

    §30121. Contributions and donations by foreign nationals
    (a) Prohibition
    It shall be unlawful for-

    (1) a foreign national, directly or indirectly, to make-

    (A) a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State, or local election;

    (B) a contribution or donation to a committee of a political party; or

    (C) an expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement for an electioneering communication (within the meaning of section 30104(f)(3) of this title); or

    (2) a person to solicit, accept, or receive a contribution or donation described in subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph (1) from a foreign national.

    (b) “Foreign national” defined
    As used in this section, the term “foreign national” means-

    (1) a foreign principal, as such term is defined by section 611(b) of title 22, except that the term “foreign national” shall not include any individual who is a citizen of the United States; or

    (2) an individual who is not a citizen of the United States or a national of the United States (as defined in section 1101(a)(22) of title 8) and who is not lawfully admitted for permanent residence, as defined by section 1101(a)(20) of title 8.

    (Pub. L. 92–225, title III, §319, formerly §324, as added Pub. L. 94–283, title I, §112(2), May 11, 1976, 90 Stat. 493 ; renumbered §319, Pub. L. 96–187, title I, §105(5), Jan. 8, 1980, 93 Stat. 1354 ; amended Pub. L. 107–155, title III, §§303, 317, Mar. 27, 2002, 116 Stat. 96 , 109.)

    • On February 10, 2018 at 9:58 am,
      Big Al says:

      And thank you for this comment. I assume that you information is accurate.

  3. On February 10, 2018 at 11:09 am,
    AJ says:

    The Facts on Uranium One

    Hillary Clinton Gave 20 Percent of United States’ Uranium to Russia in Exchange for Clinton Foundation Donations?

  4. On February 10, 2018 at 11:10 am,
    CFS says:

    Her biggest and most disgusting sin as far as I’m concerned is accepting hundreds of millions of dollars for the Haiti earthquake relief, but using 97% of that money on her family, instead of building housing for those living in tents. Their is no excuse for not helping some of the poorest people on earth.
    I donated to the Red Cross and regret that, since they also misappropriated funds. I am totally disgusted at how so-called charities have become either political entities or corrupt, wasteful systems. That includes Oxfam, for which I personally volunteered days of my time as well as donations of money; now nothing much more than a Marxist lobby organization.

    • On February 10, 2018 at 11:48 am,
      Big Al says:

      Is it documented that the Clinton’s spent 97% of the money that was designated for Haiti?

    • On February 10, 2018 at 1:43 pm,
      jhpace1 says:

      It’s a natural evolution of fascism – the merging of corporations and the State. But not just the State. For generations, the State has been jealous of the organized religion, because the Church can get people to volunteer without compensation on behalf of the community, at times “for the greater good”. The Church has always been jealous of the State’s ability to tax “for the greater good”. Corporations love using the State to minimize competition and force consumption. Consumption can be taxed. The Church is seen as a spiritual mirror to the State in this narrow viewpoint.

      So constructing a false “charity” that uses humans’ natural spiritual benevolence to donate material wealth to a compassionate cause, only to have the proceeds diverted for personal gain, and the original situation to remain unchanged, and therefore a continuous source of revenue, mimics the outward appearance of the Church that satisfies both State and corporation.

      If you do not believe in Heaven or Hell, then constructing a church-like organization that mimics something you don’t believe in but is a great source of income with false pretenses is just a challenge for charm and gullibility.

      • On February 10, 2018 at 6:54 pm,
        Big Al says:

        Mr Pace,

        There are those of us who do believe in a Heave and a Hell.

  5. On February 10, 2018 at 11:11 am,
    CFS says:

    I do know the difference between their and there.

  6. On February 10, 2018 at 5:14 pm,
    CFS says:
  7. On February 10, 2018 at 5:17 pm,
    CFS says:
  8. On February 10, 2018 at 5:32 pm,
    CFS says:
  9. On February 10, 2018 at 9:22 pm,
    CFS says:

    more on Haiti, Hillary, and sex traffic:

  10. On February 11, 2018 at 4:59 pm,
    Excelsior says:

    * speaking of oldies but goodies…..

    The Hillary Shimmy Song