[Hong Wu]

http://archive.is/K8XvP

Before the Obama administration approved a controversial deal in 2010 giving Moscow control of a large swath of American uranium, the FBI had gathered substantial evidence that Russian nuclear industry officials were engaged in bribery, kickbacks, extortion and money laundering designed to grow Vladimir Putin’s atomic energy business inside the United States, according to government documents and interviews.
Federal agents used a confidential U.S. witness working inside the Russian nuclear industry to gather extensive financial records, make secret recordings and intercept emails as early as 2009 that showed Moscow had compromised an American uranium trucking firm with bribes and kickbacks in violation of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, FBI and court documents show.
They also obtained an eyewitness account — backed by documents — indicating Russian nuclear officials had routed millions of dollars to the U.S. designed to benefit former President Bill Clinton’s charitable foundation during the time Secretary of State Hillary Clinton served on a government body that provided a favorable decision to Moscow, sources told The Hill.
The racketeering scheme was conducted “with the consent of higher level officials” in Russia who “shared the proceeds” from the kickbacks, one agent declared in an affidavit years later.
ADVERTISEMENT
Rather than bring immediate charges in 2010, however, the Department of Justice (DOJ) continued investigating the matter for nearly four more years, essentially leaving the American public and Congress in the dark about Russian nuclear corruption on U.S. soil during a period when the Obama administration made two major decisions benefitting Putin’s commercial nuclear ambitions.

This is probably the smoking gun, guys. People have been saying this deal was fishy for awhile but this looks like a pretty big deal. That Awan case has also been moving on in interesting ways. You know what they've been saying, Lock her up!

[Igor Antunov]

Before the Obama administration approved a controversial deal in 2010 giving Moscow control of a large swath of American uranium, the FBI had gathered substantial evidence that Russian nuclear industry officials were engaged in bribery, kickbacks, extortion and money laundering designed to grow Vladimir Putin’s atomic energy business inside the United States, according to government documents and interviews.

Federal agents used a confidential U.S. witness working inside the Russian nuclear industry to gather extensive financial records, make secret recordings and intercept emails as early as 2009 that showed Moscow had compromised an American uranium trucking firm with bribes and kickbacks in violation of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, FBI and court documents show.

They also obtained an eyewitness account — backed by documents — indicating Russian nuclear officials had routed millions of dollars to the U.S. designed to benefit former President Bill Clinton’s charitable foundation during the time Secretary of State Hillary Clinton served on a government body that provided a favorable decision to Moscow, sources told The Hill.

The racketeering scheme was conducted “with the consent of higher level officials” in Russia who “shared the proceeds” from the kickbacks, one agent declared in an affidavit years later.

Rather than bring immediate charges in 2010, however, the Department of Justice (DOJ) continued investigating the matter for nearly four more years, essentially leaving the American public and Congress in the dark about Russian nuclear corruption on U.S. soil during a period when the Obama administration made two major decisions benefiting Putin’s commercial nuclear ambitions.

The Obama administration and the Clintons defended their actions at the time, insisting there was no evidence that any Russians or donors engaged in wrongdoing and there was no national security reason for any member of the committee to oppose the Uranium One deal.

But FBI, Energy Department and court documents reviewed by The Hill show the FBI in fact had gathered substantial evidence well before the committee’s decision that Vadim Mikerin — the main Russian overseeing Putin’s nuclear expansion inside the United States — was engaged in wrongdoing starting in 2009.

Then-Attorney General Eric Holder was among the Obama administration officials joining Hillary Clinton on the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States at the time the Uranium One deal was approved. Multiple current and former government officials told The Hill they did not know whether the FBI or DOJ ever alerted committee members to the criminal activity they uncovered.

Full story: http://thehill.com/policy/national-secu ... nistration

Spin this one.

Fbi covers up Russia bribery allegations. Robert Mueller was the head of the fbi. MUELLER then delivers uranium to Russia. Hillary gets kickback under the table. Now, Mueller is Investigating Trump and Russia collusion.

[Rancid]

Spin spin spin!

[AFAIK]

The Clinton Foundation's quid-pro-quo corruption is well documented but largely ignored since legal email servers are far more damning.

[Hong Wu]

There's been a deafening silence on this one so far. In some ways it's not really new, the Clinton Foundation received $144 million or something from Russia before Hillary approved this deal and they couldn't hide it but people didn't really care. The new part appears to be the revelation that this payout was contemporaneous with widespread Russian bribery and extortion that violates existing laws as applied to a large number of other people who aren't Clintons, so it's illegal for them I guess and clearly connected to the legal because Clinton part.

The FBI sitting on the evidence of their own investigation and how it ties to people like Mueller is interesting too though. Mueller is taking an unusually long time to investigate Trump for something he's possibly complicit in himself...

[The Immortal Goon]

There's been a deafening silence on this one so far.

If you didn't think the Democratic Party—a party whose Tammany Hall faction ultimately beat back its KKK faction—was corrupt, then there's not much to said for you anyway.

The only thing of note is that the Trumpites seem to think that this somehow vindicates their own slavish excuses of their masters.

It's Harvey Weinstein again. The Trumpites had been whining that their assaulter was fine because they excused Bill Clinton for abusing his position or something. I don't know, I never followed that logic. Then the Trumpites got butt-hurt about the deafening silence about Harvey Weinstein until it was clear there wasn't a silence about it, and then they turned around and started whining about people being too mean to Harvey Weinstein. And that again, somehow excused Trump or whatever.

In short, if you're not a slavish devotee to the Democrats or the Republicans this isn't that interesting of a story as pillaging Russia for funds has been happening since 1993. And of course this was done with political support.

It in no way exonerates Trump for no reason at all. Nor Obama nor Clinton nor Bush nor Jimmy-Fucking-Carter or anybody else someone can whine about.

[Hong Wu]

There's some fair arguments in there I think. Although I'm not convinced that Trump is a "sexual predator" since most of his accusers didn't appear until he was running for President and none of them stood the test of time once people started asking them for details. But you have chosen to believe it I guess which makes your arguments otherwise good.

To elaborate, when I say there's silence, there's very little discussion of this not only here but also in other places and I would have thought this is a big deal. The people accusing Trump of collusion with Russia were colluding with Russia who now owns 20% of US uranium supply, thanks to the same people who say they are a huge threat and now we see those people were being paid/extorted by Russia. So yes, it is partly about vindication of Trump because it's a huge vindication, I see no reason to deny this when Trump was basically being accused of a potentially capital offense.

[Hong Wu]

[Finfinder]

Wonder why there such little interest in discussing this on POFO ?

WHERE’S THE COVERAGE …
Nothing on CNN … More than 24 hours ago, The Hill reported that the FBI knew of, and was investigating, Russian bribes before the Obama administration approved a deal giving Russians control of a significant portion of U.S. uranium production. Not a single word from CNN. This happened way back in the early days of the Obama presidency, and investigators were looking into payments made to the Clinton Foundation that may have swayed Hillary Clinton, who was part of the chain of approval of the deal. You wouldn’t know that if you watched CNN. As of noon today, the only reference to the bombshell report was during live coverage of a hearing involving Senator Jeff Sessions before a Senate committee. There have been no produced news reports on the network, according to the TV Eyes Media Monitoring Suite. It is a total blackout.

Nothing on the website either … There has been no coverage on CNN digital pages, either. This is par for the course with CNN for Obama administration scandals. The big hook being missed is that Special Counsel Robert Mueller was FBI director when this deal was approved. He is now investigating a different Russian “collusion.” There should be serious questions raised as to whether or not he can be impartial, given his role in this earlier case.

Nothing on the broadcast networks, either … Our friends at NewsBusters show that there was no coverage of the uranium news on the networks, either. They further report that the networks, across all news programming, have spent a whopping total of 181 seconds on the Clinton Foundation scandal. That’s huge bias, plain and simple.


https://www.conservativereview.com/arti ... -bombshell

[Hong Wu]

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/3572 ... before?amp

FBI informant cleared to testify before congress, so we might learn some new things about this one soon!

[anna]

The Uranium One deal was not Clinton’s to veto or approve

Among the ways these accusations stray from the facts is in attributing a power of veto or approval to Secretary Clinton that she simply did not have. Clinton was one of nine cabinet members and department heads that sit on the CFIUS, and the secretary of the treasury is its chairperson. CFIUS members are collectively charged with evaluating the transaction for potential national security issues, then turning their findings over to the president. By law, the committee can’t veto a transaction; only the president can. According to The New York Times, Clinton may not have even directly participated in the Uranium One decision. Then-Assistant Secretary of State Jose Fernandez, whose job it was to represent the State Dept. on CFIUS, said Clinton herself “never intervened” in committee matters.

Despite transfer of ownership, the uranium remained in the U.S.

A key fact ignored in criticisms of Clinton’s supposed involvement in the deal is that the uranium was not — nor could it be — exported, and remained under the control of U.S.-based subsidiaries of Uranium One, according to a statement by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission:

NRC’s review of the transfer of control request determined that the U.S. subsidiaries will
remain the licensees, will remain qualified to conduct the uranium recovery operations, and will continue to have the equipment, facilities, and procedures necessary to protect public health and safety and to minimize danger to life or property. The review also determined that the licensees will maintain adequate financial surety for eventual decommissioning of the sites. Neither Uranium One nor ARMZ holds an NRC export license, so no uranium produced at either facility may be exported.
The timing of most of the donations does not match

Of the $145 million allegedly contributed to the Clinton Foundation by Uranium One investors, the lion’s share — $131.3 million — came from a single donor, Frank Giustra, the company’s founder. But Giustra sold off his entire stake in the company in 2007, three years before the Russia deal and at least 18 months before Clinton became secretary of state.

Of the remaining individuals connected with Uranium One who donated to the Clinton Foundation, only one was found to have contributed during the same time frame that the deal was taking place, according to The New York Times — Ian Telfer, the company’s chairman:

His donations through the Fernwood Foundation included $1 million reported in 2009, the year his company appealed to the American Embassy to help it keep its mines in Kazakhstan; $250,000 in 2010, the year the Russians sought majority control; as well as $600,000 in 2011 and $500,000 in 2012. Mr. Telfer said that his donations had nothing to do with his business dealings, and that he had never discussed Uranium One with Mr. or Mrs. Clinton. He said he had given the money because he wanted to support Mr. Giustra’s charitable endeavors with Mr. Clinton. “Frank and I have been friends and business partners for almost 20 years,” he said.
The timing of Telfer’s donations might be questionable if there was reason to believe that Hillary Clinton was instrumental in the approval of the deal with Russia, but all the evidence points to the contrary — that Clinton did not play a pivotal role, and, in fact, may not have played any role at all.

Foundation admits disclosure mistakes

One fault investigations into the Clinton Foundation’s practices did find was that not all of the donations were properly disclosed — specifically, those of Uranium One Chairman Ian Telfer between 2009 and 2012. The foundation admitted this shortcoming and pledged to correct it, but as the Guardian pointed out in its May 2015 discussion of Clinton Cash, the fact that it happened is reason enough to sound alarm bells:

It is also true that large donations to the foundation from the chairman of Uranium One, Ian Telfer, at around the time of the Russian purchase of the company and while Hillary Clinton was secretary of state, were never disclosed to the public. The multimillion sums were channeled through a subsidiary of the Clinton Foundation, CGSCI, which did not reveal its individual donors.

Such awkward collisions between Bill’s fundraising activities and Hillary’s public service have raised concerns not just among those who might be dismissed as part of a vast right-wing conspiracy.
An enormous volume of interest and speculation surrounds the workings of the Clinton Foundation, which is to be expected. Given the enormous sums of money it controls and the fact that it is run by a former U.S. president who is married to a possible future U.S. president, the foundation deserves all the scrutiny it gets, and more.

At the same time, for the sake of accuracy it’s crucial to differentiate between partisan accusations and what we actually know about it — however little that may be.

Update

On 17 October 2017, The Hill reported obtaining evidence that Vadim Mikerin, a Russian official who oversaw the American operations of the Russian nuclear agency Rosatom, was being investigated for corruption by multiple U.S. agencies while the Uranium One deal was up for approval — information that apparently was not shared with U.S. officials involved in approving the transaction. The Hill also reported receiving documents and eyewitness testimony “indicating Russian nuclear officials had routed millions of dollars to the U.S. designed to benefit former President Bill Clinton’s charitable foundation during the time Secretary of State Hillary Clinton served on a government body that provided a favorable decision to Moscow,” although no specifics about who those Russian nuclear officials were or how the money was allegedly routed to the Clinton Foundation were given. In any case, none of these revelations prove that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton participated in a quid pro quo agreement to accept payment for approval of the Uranium One deal.

[Hong Wu]

The Uranium One deal was not Clinton’s to veto or approve

Among the ways these accusations stray from the facts is in attributing a power of veto or approval to Secretary Clinton that she simply did not have. Clinton was one of nine cabinet members and department heads that sit on the CFIUS, and the secretary of the treasury is its chairperson. CFIUS members are collectively charged with evaluating the transaction for potential national security issues, then turning their findings over to the president. By law, the committee can’t veto a transaction; only the president can. According to The New York Times, Clinton may not have even directly participated in the Uranium One decision. Then-Assistant Secretary of State Jose Fernandez, whose job it was to represent the State Dept. on CFIUS, said Clinton herself “never intervened” in committee matters.

Despite transfer of ownership, the uranium remained in the U.S.

A key fact ignored in criticisms of Clinton’s supposed involvement in the deal is that the uranium was not — nor could it be — exported, and remained under the control of U.S.-based subsidiaries of Uranium One, according to a statement by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission:

NRC’s review of the transfer of control request determined that the U.S. subsidiaries will
remain the licensees, will remain qualified to conduct the uranium recovery operations, and will continue to have the equipment, facilities, and procedures necessary to protect public health and safety and to minimize danger to life or property. The review also determined that the licensees will maintain adequate financial surety for eventual decommissioning of the sites. Neither Uranium One nor ARMZ holds an NRC export license, so no uranium produced at either facility may be exported.
The timing of most of the donations does not match

Of the $145 million allegedly contributed to the Clinton Foundation by Uranium One investors, the lion’s share — $131.3 million — came from a single donor, Frank Giustra, the company’s founder. But Giustra sold off his entire stake in the company in 2007, three years before the Russia deal and at least 18 months before Clinton became secretary of state.

Of the remaining individuals connected with Uranium One who donated to the Clinton Foundation, only one was found to have contributed during the same time frame that the deal was taking place, according to The New York Times — Ian Telfer, the company’s chairman:

His donations through the Fernwood Foundation included $1 million reported in 2009, the year his company appealed to the American Embassy to help it keep its mines in Kazakhstan; $250,000 in 2010, the year the Russians sought majority control; as well as $600,000 in 2011 and $500,000 in 2012. Mr. Telfer said that his donations had nothing to do with his business dealings, and that he had never discussed Uranium One with Mr. or Mrs. Clinton. He said he had given the money because he wanted to support Mr. Giustra’s charitable endeavors with Mr. Clinton. “Frank and I have been friends and business partners for almost 20 years,” he said.
The timing of Telfer’s donations might be questionable if there was reason to believe that Hillary Clinton was instrumental in the approval of the deal with Russia, but all the evidence points to the contrary — that Clinton did not play a pivotal role, and, in fact, may not have played any role at all.

Foundation admits disclosure mistakes

One fault investigations into the Clinton Foundation’s practices did find was that not all of the donations were properly disclosed — specifically, those of Uranium One Chairman Ian Telfer between 2009 and 2012. The foundation admitted this shortcoming and pledged to correct it, but as the Guardian pointed out in its May 2015 discussion of Clinton Cash, the fact that it happened is reason enough to sound alarm bells:

It is also true that large donations to the foundation from the chairman of Uranium One, Ian Telfer, at around the time of the Russian purchase of the company and while Hillary Clinton was secretary of state, were never disclosed to the public. The multimillion sums were channeled through a subsidiary of the Clinton Foundation, CGSCI, which did not reveal its individual donors.

Such awkward collisions between Bill’s fundraising activities and Hillary’s public service have raised concerns not just among those who might be dismissed as part of a vast right-wing conspiracy.
An enormous volume of interest and speculation surrounds the workings of the Clinton Foundation, which is to be expected. Given the enormous sums of money it controls and the fact that it is run by a former U.S. president who is married to a possible future U.S. president, the foundation deserves all the scrutiny it gets, and more.

At the same time, for the sake of accuracy it’s crucial to differentiate between partisan accusations and what we actually know about it — however little that may be.

Update

On 17 October 2017, The Hill reported obtaining evidence that Vadim Mikerin, a Russian official who oversaw the American operations of the Russian nuclear agency Rosatom, was being investigated for corruption by multiple U.S. agencies while the Uranium One deal was up for approval — information that apparently was not shared with U.S. officials involved in approving the transaction. The Hill also reported receiving documents and eyewitness testimony “indicating Russian nuclear officials had routed millions of dollars to the U.S. designed to benefit former President Bill Clinton’s charitable foundation during the time Secretary of State Hillary Clinton served on a government body that provided a favorable decision to Moscow,” although no specifics about who those Russian nuclear officials were or how the money was allegedly routed to the Clinton Foundation were given. In any case, none of these revelations prove that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton participated in a quid pro quo agreement to accept payment for approval of the Uranium One deal.

Clinton didn't have full control of the deal but one of the reasons this is in the news is because there was apparently a widespread Russian bribery and extortion effort, which is to say that the Clintons and their foundation received a lot of money (over $145 million) from the Russians while other people who had a say in the deal were also being bribed or targeted. Do you think this makes the obvious payouts to the Clintons look worse by association, that they were receiving this money at the same time others were being bribed or extorted over the same thing?

[skinster]

[anna]

Clinton didn't have full control of the deal but one of the reasons this is in the news is because there was apparently a widespread Russian bribery and extortion effort, which is to say that the Clintons and their foundation received a lot of money (over $145 million) from the Russians while other people who had a say in the deal were also being bribed or targeted. Do you think this makes the obvious payouts to the Clintons look worse by association, that they were receiving this money at the same time others were being bribed or extorted over the same thing?

None of this is news: not the speaking fee for Bill Clinton, not the contributions to the Clinton charity, not the fact that apparently she wasn't even involved with the decision. Was there a crime committed by either Clinton?


What this old information is being used for right now is for obscuring the Trump campaign/Cambridge Analytica/Nix/Assange story.

[anna]

This is probably the smoking gun, guys. People have been saying this deal was fishy for awhile but this looks like a pretty big deal. That Awan case has also been moving on in interesting ways. You know what they've been saying, Lock her up!

Probably not.

Amazing, though how open conservatives are to the idea of Russian meddling if they think they can connect it to Hillary or Obama. Or both together!

Hew, about adding in Soros and making it a trifecta?