Uranium One

I’ve seen a bit about this scandal around.  Here is a short overview from Fox News.  Please embed.

 

https://youtu.be/RnsAZzsdI1U

The Shepard Smith piece? He sort of takes all the fun out of it.

ksacs revenge - The Shepard Smith piece? He sort of takes all the fun out of it.

except he totally misses the point

the timeframe when the $130+ m paid to the clinton's isnt as damning as it would be if it happened right when the approval was made, but it isn't exonerating by any means

even assuming the timing of the contribution to be true (which has not been proven) just bc a founder sells his stake in a company does not mean hes no longer involved or benefits from the company.

also, the fact that clinton was 1 of 9 people that had to approve it doesnt mean shes exonerated? you can bribe one of 9, especially when the 1 is the SOS and has a lot of influence on the other 8

there is no debunking...just additional facts that make the case not as open and shut

but when you take a step back and realize that 145+ million when to the clinton foundation from the stockholders of U1 and bill got extra speaking fees and how the clintons were involved with shady uranium dealings in the past, and how russians were charged with bribes and other illegal activities in an effort to get US uranium and the clinton's were aware of it....its really pretty obvious what happened

Good summary. With Fox New reporting unwelcome facts I suppose they are now considered "fake news" by the hardcore Trump supporters.

But the facts just aren't as damning anymore. Now we have to imagine Clinton either made everyone else agree to it with no evidence, or that everyone else was also brided with no evidence.

THE DAILY WIRE

WATCH: Shep Smith 'Destroys' The Uranium One Scandal. Except There's More To The Story.

By Ben Shapiro
November 15, 2017

On Tuesday evening, the media world went gaga over Fox News’ Shepard Smith “debunking” the so-called Uranium One scandal.

Smith went after President Trump’s characterization of the situation; Trump stated that Hillary Clinton’s State Department had approved “transfer of 20% of America’s uranium holdings to Russia. Well, nine investors in the deal funneled $145 million to the Clinton Foundation.” Smith stated that the Clinton State Department “had no power to approve or veto that transaction,” continuing:

The accusation is predicated on the charge that Secretary Clinton approved the sale. She did not. A committee of nine evaluated the sale, the president approved the sale, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and others had to offer permits, and none of the uranium was exported for use by the U.S. to Russia.

Smith also pointed out that most of the money supposedly funneled to the Clinton Foundation came from Frank Giustra, who had divested from the uranium company years before the sale.

So, here’s what’s true about the Uranium One deal.

Giustra owned a company called UrAsia, which was sold to Uranium One; Giustra then says he divested his personal stake in the company, though his shareholders still owned 60% of the company, and there is no way to confirm the truth of his claim. In 2009 and 2010, Rosatom, Russia’s atomic energy agency, was poised to buy a majority of the company. Rosatom was barred by law from exporting American uranium abroad, so Russia couldn’t exactly mine in Wyoming and build nukes in Moscow.

In 2013, Russia bought the rest of Uranium One with the approval of the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, as well as the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and Utah agencies. The CFIUS includes the State Department. Clinton claimed she had nothing to do with the greenlighting, and pointed to the fact that multiple agencies had approved the sale.

So, how much money actually flowed from Uranium One beneficiaries to the Clinton Foundation? If we don’t include Giustra, the amount drops from $145 million to $4 million.

But this is a bit too simplistic. The New York Times reported that the Uranium One acquisition actually began in 2005, while Giustra still owned the company, “with Mr. Clinton at his side.” According to the Times:

The two men had flown aboard Mr. Giustra’s private jet to Almaty, Kazakhstan, where they dined with the authoritarian president, Nursultan A. Nazarbayev. Mr. Clinton handed the Kazakh president a propaganda coup when he expressed support for Mr. Nazarbayev’s bid to head an international elections monitoring group, undercutting American foreign policy and criticism of Kazakhstan’s poor human rights record by, among others, his wife, then a senator. Within days of the visit, Mr. Giustra’s fledgling company, UrAsia Energy Ltd., signed a preliminary deal giving it stakes in three uranium mines controlled by the state-run uranium agency Kazatomprom. If the Kazakh deal was a major victory, UrAsia did not wait long before resuming the hunt. In 2007, it merged with Uranium One, a South African company with assets in Africa and Australia, in what was described as a $3.5 billion transaction. The new company, which kept the Uranium One name, was controlled by UrAsia investors including Ian Telfer, a Canadian who became chairman. Through a spokeswoman, Mr. Giustra, whose personal stake in the deal was estimated at about $45 million, said he sold his stake in 2007. Soon, Uranium One began to snap up companies with assets in the United States. In April 2007, it announced the purchase of a uranium mill in Utah and more than 38,000 acres of uranium exploration properties in four Western states, followed quickly by the acquisition of the Energy Metals Corporation and its uranium holdings in Wyoming, Texas and Utah. That deal made clear that Uranium One was intent on becoming “a powerhouse in the United States uranium sector with the potential to become the domestic supplier of choice for U.S. utilities,” the company declared. … The Times published an article revealing the 2005 trip’s link to Mr. Giustra’s Kazakhstan mining deal. It also reported that several months later, Mr. Giustra had donated $31.3 million to Mr. Clinton’s foundation.

Furthermore, questions about Rosatom’s control of uranium isn’t about the Russians crafting nukes — they already have them. It’s about shortages of uranium in the United States, and dependence on foreign sources for that material. It was also about Rosatom purchasing a huge stake of nuclear material in Kazakhstan.

And the Clintons were still involved. Here’s the Times again:

Mr. Telfer’s undisclosed donations came in addition to between $1.3 million and $5.6 million in contributions, which were reported, from a constellation of people with ties to Uranium One or UrAsia, the company that originally acquired Uranium One’s most valuable asset: the Kazakh mines. Without those assets, the Russians would have had no interest in the deal: “It wasn’t the goal to buy the Wyoming mines. The goal was to acquire the Kazakh assets, which are very good,” Mr. Novikov, the Rosatom spokesman, said in an interview. Amid this influx of Uranium One-connected money, Mr. Clinton was invited to speak in Moscow in June 2010, the same month Rosatom struck its deal for a majority stake in Uranium One. The $500,000 fee — among Mr. Clinton’s highest — was paid by Renaissance Capital, a Russian investment bank with ties to the Kremlin that has invited world leaders, including Tony Blair, the former British prime minister, to speak at its investor conferences.

So no, it’s not at all unclear that the Clintons were unrelated to Uranium One. And it’s not unclear that they’d have no interest in pushing Uranium One — Giustra still had an interest in maintaining faith with his former shareholders, and the Clintons had intervened in the past to help out the company beyond Giustra’s involvement. That doesn't mean that Hillary signed off on the Uranium One sale. But to downplay the sale itself or the Clintons' interest in it would neglect facts in evidence.

yabadaba - Good summary. With Fox New reporting unwelcome facts I suppose they are now considered "fake news" by the hardcore Trump supporters.


this is the funny thing.  I dont really care for Fox news and I certainly dont think they are without bias BUT when people try to compare them to CNN there really is no comparison.  CNN is blatantly activist.  Fox news is more impartial but they also have their Shep Smiths - Shep hates trump and is not timid about taking an anti GOP slant these days.  CNN is just totally worthles DNC activist propaganda.  

ksacs revenge - But the facts just aren't as damning anymore. Now we have to imagine Clinton either made everyone else agree to it with no evidence, or that everyone else was also brided with no evidence.

Could it be that some were, and some weren't? Or most were, but there were hold outs?.. The squeaky wheel got the grease, as they say?

 It doesn't have to be all or nothing; that's just lazy.

I had money I'm this stock after it dropped way low from Fukishima.

The Jentleman - 
ksacs revenge - But the facts just aren't as damning anymore. Now we have to imagine Clinton either made everyone else agree to it with no evidence, or that everyone else was also brided with no evidence.

Could it be that some were, and some weren't? Or most were, but there were hold outs?.. The squeaky wheel got the grease, as they say?

 It doesn't have to be all or nothing; that's just lazy.


If some didn't have to be bribed, maybe none did.

FOX News is the least biased when covering President Trump.

FOX News:
52% negative vs 48% positive.

Wall Street Journal:
70% negative vs 30% positive.

Washington Post:
83% negative vs 17% positive.

New York Times:
87% negative vs 13% positive.

CBS:
91% negative vs 9% positive.

NBC:
93% negative vs 7% positive.

CNN:
93% negative vs 7% positive.

jimmy23 - 


"even assuming the timing of the contribution to be true (which has not been proven) just bc a founder sells his stake in a company does not mean hes no longer involved or benefits from the company. "



 



explain this please


the claim is that the vast majority of the $140+M donated to the clinton foundation by uranium one stockholders was contributed by a guy a few years after he sold all his interests in the company.

if thats true, that doesnt mean it wasnt a quid pro quo. After a founder sells a company, there are a number of common ways he still benefits from the company's success. for example, he could get an "earnout" which are payments he receives post-sale based on the company's revenues. or he could still have a consulting role where he gets paid by the company. or he could have some type of finders or side letter agreement where he gets a cut of deals he brings to the company.

at the end of the day, just take a step back and ask, why the hell did he donate 130M to the clinton foundation anyways regardless of the timing? its all just a big coincidence?

ksacs revenge - 
The Jentleman - 
ksacs revenge - But the facts just aren't as damning anymore. Now we have to imagine Clinton either made everyone else agree to it with no evidence, or that everyone else was also brided with no evidence.

Could it be that some were, and some weren't? Or most were, but there were hold outs?.. The squeaky wheel got the grease, as they say?

 It doesn't have to be all or nothing; that's just lazy.


If some didn't have to be bribed, maybe none did.

the way the government works is scratch my back and ill scratch yours. thats how it is in virtually every single bill passed by congress - you vote for my legislation this time (Which benefits me), then I'll vote for your legislation next time (which benefits you). thats literally how things are run.

Get A Grip Dude - 
gokudamus - 
jimmy23 - 


"even assuming the timing of the contribution to be true (which has not been proven) just bc a founder sells his stake in a company does not mean hes no longer involved or benefits from the company. "



 



explain this please


the claim is that the vast majority of the $140+M donated to the clinton foundation by uranium one stockholders was contributed by a guy a few years after he sold all his interests in the company.

if thats true, that doesnt mean it wasnt a quid pro quo. After a founder sells a company, there are a number of common ways he still benefits from the company's success. for example, he could get an "earnout" which are payments he receives post-sale based on the company's revenues. or he could still have a consulting role where he gets paid by the company. or he could have some type of finders or side letter agreement where he gets a cut of deals he brings to the company.

at the end of the day, just take a step back and ask, why the hell did he donate 130M to the clinton foundation anyways regardless of the timing? its all just a big coincidence?


Why does any billionaire donate anything to anybody? Giustra and his own various foundations have been donating millions to the Clinton Foundation since 1997, and he is on their Board.



 


they do it for quid pro quo...which would be fine if clinton wasnt selling out our country and international security as her quid....

The funny part is that out of all the sordid stuff she did these morons at fox cant point at anything beside the non-story,

 

I mean what about the shit she let happen in honduras, or the outright theft that the US turned a blind eye to in argentina. Or the bad policy of essentially allowing afghanistan to turn into a narco state, or the donations from turkey and saudi arabia to let them do they bullshit or the arming of fatah... The list of bad policy and shady shit is very long but its laughable that uranium one is being the one thats touted

Get A Grip Dude -
gokudamus - 
Get A Grip Dude - 
gokudamus - 
jimmy23 - 


"even assuming the timing of the contribution to be true (which has not been proven) just bc a founder sells his stake in a company does not mean hes no longer involved or benefits from the company. "



 



explain this please


the claim is that the vast majority of the $140+M donated to the clinton foundation by uranium one stockholders was contributed by a guy a few years after he sold all his interests in the company.

if thats true, that doesnt mean it wasnt a quid pro quo. After a founder sells a company, there are a number of common ways he still benefits from the company's success. for example, he could get an "earnout" which are payments he receives post-sale based on the company's revenues. or he could still have a consulting role where he gets paid by the company. or he could have some type of finders or side letter agreement where he gets a cut of deals he brings to the company.

at the end of the day, just take a step back and ask, why the hell did he donate 130M to the clinton foundation anyways regardless of the timing? its all just a big coincidence?


Why does any billionaire donate anything to anybody? Giustra and his own various foundations have been donating millions to the Clinton Foundation since 1997, and he is on their Board.



 


they do it for quid pro quo...which would be fine if clinton wasnt selling out our country and international security as her quid....


But no one thinks international security was an issue, which is why all 9 agencies, the 16 agencies that make up the total advisory group, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and the President all okayed the deal. It's why none of these news orgs or Republicans crying for an investigation have bothered to ask ANY of those other people about the deal and why they okayed it, which a rational person would think would be step one in determining if any specific individual among them must have been bribed to do so.



The country was not "sold out", stop being a hysterical goof.

Ummm do U know what uranium is used for ? Don’t tell me who approved it. That’s meaningless. Politicians are corrupt and or incompetent. 

gallo_de_ pelea - FOX News is the least biased when covering President Trump.

FOX News:
52% negative vs 48% positive.

Wall Street Journal:
70% negative vs 30% positive.

Washington Post:
83% negative vs 17% positive.

New York Times:
87% negative vs 13% positive.

CBS:
91% negative vs 9% positive.

NBC:
93% negative vs 7% positive.

CNN:
93% negative vs 7% positive.

Why would the % of negative versus positive necessarily be an indication of bias? If you were covering an incompetent leader then surely more of your coverage would be negative? If the leader was generating more negative stories there would be more negative coverage?

Get A Grip Dude -
gokudamus - 
Get A Grip Dude -
gokudamus - 
Get A Grip Dude - 
gokudamus - 
jimmy23 - 


"even assuming the timing of the contribution to be true (which has not been proven) just bc a founder sells his stake in a company does not mean hes no longer involved or benefits from the company. "



 



explain this please


the claim is that the vast majority of the $140+M donated to the clinton foundation by uranium one stockholders was contributed by a guy a few years after he sold all his interests in the company.

if thats true, that doesnt mean it wasnt a quid pro quo. After a founder sells a company, there are a number of common ways he still benefits from the company's success. for example, he could get an "earnout" which are payments he receives post-sale based on the company's revenues. or he could still have a consulting role where he gets paid by the company. or he could have some type of finders or side letter agreement where he gets a cut of deals he brings to the company.

at the end of the day, just take a step back and ask, why the hell did he donate 130M to the clinton foundation anyways regardless of the timing? its all just a big coincidence?


Why does any billionaire donate anything to anybody? Giustra and his own various foundations have been donating millions to the Clinton Foundation since 1997, and he is on their Board.



 


they do it for quid pro quo...which would be fine if clinton wasnt selling out our country and international security as her quid....


But no one thinks international security was an issue, which is why all 9 agencies, the 16 agencies that make up the total advisory group, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and the President all okayed the deal. It's why none of these news orgs or Republicans crying for an investigation have bothered to ask ANY of those other people about the deal and why they okayed it, which a rational person would think would be step one in determining if any specific individual among them must have been bribed to do so.



The country was not "sold out", stop being a hysterical goof.

Ummm do U know what uranium is used for ? Don’t tell me who approved it. That’s meaningless. Politicians are corrupt and or incompetent. 



Yeah, I know what uranium is used for, do you? Explain the relevance of your question now.



I am telling you who approved it, because the fact that 5000 people in 300 different agencies all didn't bat an eye says that no $145 million bribe was necessary, and thus there is zero evidence of quid pro quo. If you're saying every one of them was bribed, then why are none of these Republicans or conservative news orgs looking into ANY of them or even simply ASKING any of them a single question? It's nothing but "Hillary Hillary Hillary".



There is literally not even any evidence that Hillary was even aware of this deal; everyone who knows the CFIUS seems to agree that this kind of thing usually doesn't rise to the level of the head of the agency. We do know Hillary didn't sign it.

Lmao. Hillary was unaware? She was doing shady shit in behalf of his company well before the deal. 

 

What do u think would happen if the trump admin approved the sale of 20 of our uranium to Russia fool?

banco - 
gallo_de_ pelea - FOX News is the least biased when covering President Trump.

FOX News:
52% negative vs 48% positive.

Wall Street Journal:
70% negative vs 30% positive.

Washington Post:
83% negative vs 17% positive.

New York Times:
87% negative vs 13% positive.

CBS:
91% negative vs 9% positive.

NBC:
93% negative vs 7% positive.

CNN:
93% negative vs 7% positive.

Why would the % of negative versus positive necessarily be an indication of bias? If you were covering an incompetent leader then surely more of your coverage would be negative? If the leader was generating more negative stories there would be more negative coverage?


this assumes trump has done nothing good which just isnt true.  No matter how sad you are that he is mean, snowflake



lol @ anyone sticking up for the MSM.  Its like people who are sticking up for mainstream politicians and the political establishment.  



fucking lunatic crybabies  



the US has gone from a great nation with the most amazing generations (WW1,2), to a nation of little sniveling faggots.  Its a true tragedy.