The US/Russian connection that is only now starting to be investigated.

[hislegacy]

Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation Amid Russian Uranium Deal

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.

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.

It is an interesting read:

 

[hislegacy]

And no, it has never been adjudicated.

 

[hislegacy]

Here is the timeline:

Donations to the Clinton Foundation, and a Russian Uranium Takeover

 

[withwonderingawe]

What if, just musing, Putin didn't have anything to do with manipulating the American elections. What if it was all Hillary and her contacts in Russia.

There is still some saying the email leaks were an inside job.

 

[Go Braves]

Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation Amid Russian Uranium Deal

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.

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.

It is an interesting read:

Well, the 1st LOL is that your thread title says that it's JUST starting to be investigated, but the article you link is from 2015. It's conveniently been revived to distract from Trump's mess with Russia. 2nd LOL is that it's from what Trump's called the failing New York Times & his apologists round here insist is totally unreliable. 3rd is that Trump's claims have been fact-checked a lot. Not much of a surprise that he's fibbed about it.
Here's one:The facts behind Trump’s repeated claim about Hillary Clinton’s role in the Russian uranium deal

"There is no evidence Clinton herself got involved in the deal personally, and it is highly questionable that this deal even rose to the level of the secretary of state. Theoretically, as Schweizer says, Clinton could have intervened. But even then, it ultimately would have been Obama’s decision whether to suspend or block the deal."

The state department was 1 of 9 US departments or agencies that approved that sale.

 

[PeachyKeane]

Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation Amid Russian Uranium Deal

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.

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.

It is an interesting read:

I'm going to ask this question every time I see this topic, because I don't quite get it.

Uranium One was a legal transaction between two international corporations, one from Russia, and one from Canada. There is no reason for them to assume that there would be reason for the transaction would be blocked or otherwise interfered with.

With this in mind, why would Hillary Clinton, then the Secretary of State of the United States need to be "bribed"? And why the specifically the Secretary of State of the United States? Why not the holder of an equal position in Canada? Why not the secretaries of the Departments of Energy, or Defense, or Commerce, or Homeland Security, or Justice, or the Environmental Protection Agency? Or their equivalents in Canada?

I don't quite get it. What's the issue here exactly?

 

[withwonderingawe]

I'm going to ask this question every time I see this topic, because I don't quite get it.

Uranium One was a legal transaction between two international corporations, one from Russia, and one from Canada. There is no reason for them to assume that there would be reason for the transaction would be blocked or otherwise interfered with.

With this in mind, why would Hillary Clinton, then the Secretary of State of the United States need to be "bribed"? And why the specifically the Secretary of State of the United States? Why not the holder of an equal position in Canada? Why not the secretaries of the Departments of Energy, or Defense, or Commerce, or Homeland Security, or Justice, or the Environmental Protection Agency? Or their equivalents in Canada?

I don't quite get it. What's the issue here exactly?

1,Each of the 9 need to be looked into. How were they persuade to vote for it? One of them was Eric Holder and another was Timothy Gitner (spelling). The Clintons got $500,000 for one speech and $145,000,000 put into their foundation. Now that's a bribe.

All of these people are interconnected through different business and non profit groups, meaning they get appointed to do nothing jobs with saleries. Did you know that a lot of Obama's cabinet was handpicked by a crony of Bills?

2, There are alugations from the FBI of bribes and kickbacks are they true? Mueller was the director of the FBI at the time, did he tell Holder about the bribes and then ignored or was he himself bribed? Why is he now investigating Trump? Is he really going after Trump or could he be looking at pay back for being ignored? He would be in the situation to know just how corrupt the Clintons are or are not.

3, The Canadian company could have been forced to sell their interest in our mine to an American company. Why weren't they?

4, Congress was told that none of the uranium would leave the country but it has. They got around it by hiring a Canadian trucking company to transport it with their licence . The ore then was transport over to Europe and who knows where.

5,Was some of the monies given to the Clinton Foundation used to buy the Democratic party, they paid off $24,000,000 of the debt Obama left and then took over the party rigging the primary. If so was this not the Russian meddling in American politics and buying a president?

These questions need to be answered!

 

[KCfromNC]

What if, just musing, Putin didn't have anything to do with manipulating the American elections. What if it was all Hillary and her contacts in Russia.

There's a separate forum here for baseless conspiracy theory nonsense.

 

[hislegacy]

There's a separate forum here for baseless conspiracy theory nonsense.

Except for the fact this is a current federal investigation

 

[essentialsaltes]

Except for the fact this is a current federal investigation

No it isn't. At least not as far as we know. The most recent news is that Congresscritters have bugged Sessions to do something. (i.e. this is politically motivated by Republican lawmakers, not a result of investigation by G-men.) And Sessions has promised to look into it, and see if there's anything there. Of course, it's already been looked into, and there doesn't seem to be anything there.

“The Attorney General has directed senior federal prosecutors to evaluate certain issues raised in your letters,” Assistant Attorney General Stephen Boyd wrote.

“These senior prosecutors will report directly to the Attorney General and the Deputy Attorney General [Rod Rosenstein], as appropriate, and will make recommendations as to whether any matters not currently under investigation should be opened, whether any matters currently under investigation require further resources, or whether any matters merit the appointment of a Special Counsel,” Boyd wrote.

 

[withwonderingawe]

Watched Sessions this morning, he masterfully handled Conors dumb question, hmmm and ha his way through his 5 mins. there was another congressman tried to twist question around to catch him in a lie. I mean it was so obvious.

 

[PeachyKeane]

1,Each of the 9 need to be looked into. How were they persuade to vote for it?

To vote for it? What are you talking about? Why would they need to be investigated?

One of them was Eric Holder and another was Timothy Gitner (spelling). The Clintons got $500,000 for one speech and $145,000,000 put into their foundation. Now that's a bribe.

Sounds like a payment and a donation. A bribe suggests they did sonething in return. What did they do in return?

All of these people are interconnected through different business and non profit groups, meaning they get appointed to do nothing jobs with saleries. Did you know that a lot of Obama's cabinet was handpicked by a crony of Bills?

What of it?

2, There are alugations from the FBI of bribes and kickbacks are they true? Mueller was the director of the FBI at the time, did he tell Holder about the bribes and then ignored or was he himself bribed? Why is he now investigating Trump? Is he really going after Trump or could he be looking at pay back for being ignored? He would be in the situation to know just how corrupt the Clintons are or are not.

What?

3, The Canadian company could have been forced to sell their interest in our mine to an American company. Why weren't they?

No, not really. How would that have worked? An American company could have outbid the Russian company but that didn't happen either.

4, Congress was told that none of the uranium would leave the country but it has. They got around it by hiring a Canadian trucking company to transport it with their licence . The ore then was transport over to Europe and who knows where.

Uh-huh? So what?

5,Was some of the monies given to the Clinton Foundation used to buy the Democratic party, they paid off $24,000,000 of the debt Obama left and then took over the party rigging the primary. If so was this not the Russian meddling in American politics and buying a president?

Again...what?

These questions need to be answered!

This has bern a fascinating look at the mind of a conspiracy theorist.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Donald Trump Jr., Jared Kushner, the president’s son-in-law, and Paul J. Manafort, then the Trump campaign chairman, meeting with Natalia Veselnitskaya and her Kremlin-prepared memo. And then forgetting all about the meeting, until they remembered it. That's all far too simple for the subtle minds of Republican conspiracy theorists to grasp.

Behold the devious schemes of the Demoncrats.

It is again important to keep in mind that this chart is not the product of any law enforcement agency or investigation. This is a Republican hack flinging poop.

 

[hislegacy]

Look at the timeline of events

2005 - Frank Giustra, a Canadian mining financier, wins a major uranium deal in Kazakhstan for his company, UrAsia, days after visiting the country with former President Bill Clinton.

That might be coincidence, except less than a year later Mr. Guistra makes a donation of 31,300,000 to the Clinton Foundation

The following year, Mr. Guistra's company, UrAsia, merges with a South African mining company and assumes the name Uranium One. In the next two months, the company expands into the United States.

Again within a year, the negotiations begin for an investment in Uranium One by the Russian atomic energy agency, Rosatom.​

Over the next two years investors from Rosatom make a total to 8,650,000 in donations to the now Secretary of States foundation - these donations where never reported as required by federal laws.

2010 - 2011 Investors continue to give unreported donations to the Secretary of States foundation - still unreported as required by law - sum total $145,000,000
​

In June 2010 Rosatom seeks majority ownership of Uranium One, pending approval by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, of which the State Department is a member. Of which the Secretary of State carries immeasurable influence. During those negotiations, Rosatom pleadges that it does not plan to increase its stake in Uranium One or to take the company private.

June 29th finds former President Bill Clinton being paid $500,000 for a speech in Moscow by a Russian investment bank with ties to the Kremlin that assigned a buy rating to Uranium One stock.
​

Four months later, Rosatom’s majority ownership approved by Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States. With the Secretary of State exerting considerable influence. Gaining a 51% stake in the mining.

Two years and two months later Rosatom reverses their promise on it's original assertion and take 100% control of the company and goes private.

All this happened, was questioned and never investigated by Robert Mueller or the Obama justice department, though members of congress requested it. The Obama Administration just did not want to investigate the Obama Administration.

​

 

[PeachyKeane]

Look at the timeline of events

2005 - Frank Giustra, a Canadian mining financier, wins a major uranium deal in Kazakhstan for his company, UrAsia, days after visiting the country with former President Bill Clinton.

That might be coincidence, except less than a year later Mr. Guistra makes a donation of 31,300,000 to the Clinton Foundation

The following year, Mr. Guistra's company, UrAsia, merges with a South African mining company and assumes the name Uranium One. In the next two months, the company expands into the United States.

Again within a year, the negotiations begin for an investment in Uranium One by the Russian atomic energy agency, Rosatom.​

Over the next two years investors from Rosatom make a total to 8,650,000 in donations to the now Secretary of States foundation - these donations where never reported as required by federal laws.

2010 - 2011 Investors continue to give unreported donations to the Secretary of States foundation - still unreported as required by law - sum total $145,000,000
​

In June 2010 Rosatom seeks majority ownership of Uranium One, pending approval by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, of which the State Department is a member. Of which the Secretary of State carries immeasurable influence. During those negotiations, Rosatom pleadges that it does not plan to increase its stake in Uranium One or to take the company private.

June 29th finds former President Bill Clinton being paid $500,000 for a speech in Moscow by a Russian investment bank with ties to the Kremlin that assigned a buy rating to Uranium One stock.
​

Four months later, Rosatom’s majority ownership approved by Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States. With the Secretary of State exerting considerable influence. Gaining a 51% stake in the mining.

Two years and two months later Rosatom reverses their promise on it's original assertion and take 100% control of the company and goes private.

All this happened, was questioned and never investigated by Robert Mueller or the Obama justice department, though members of congress requested it. The Obama Administration just did not want to investigate the Obama Administration.

​

Okay. But for the bribe theory to hold water there must be a reason the Secretary of State needed to be bribed for the deal to go through. Why would that bribe be necessary? In this deal, what was illegal? What legal argument should have stopped the deal from taking place? If there isn't one, there is no conspiracy, and there is no reason to investigate.

Answer that question and we can move on to the other questions.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Take it from FoxNews, there's nothing there.

“The accusation is predicated on the charge that Secretary Clinton approved the sale,” Smith concluded. “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. That is Uranium One.”

 

[hislegacy]

Okay. But for the bribe theory to hold water there must be a reason the Secretary of State needed to be bribed for the deal to go through. Why would that bribe be necessary? In this deal, what was illegal? What legal argument should have stopped the deal from taking place? If there isn't one, there is no conspiracy, and there is no reason to investigate.

Answer that question and we can move on to the other questions.

I dunno, I mean how can 145,500,000 be an incentive to use your influence.

 

[hislegacy]

Take it from FoxNews, there's nothing there.

“The accusation is predicated on the charge that Secretary Clinton approved the sale,” Smith concluded. “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. That is Uranium One.”

No Secretary Clinton did not have the ability to approve the sale, but the Secretary of State has considerable influence and sway in what the committee does and is the right hand of the President.

Furthermore, this lifelong political figure failed once again to follow federal regulations and did not report the income nor its sources.

That alone is a violation.

 

[PeachyKeane]

I dunno, I mean how can 145,500,000 be an incentive to use your influence.

Influence to do what? Is there a reason this deal would not go through without that influence?

 

[Maren]

2010 - 2011 Investors continue to give unreported donations to the Secretary of States foundation - still unreported as required by law - sum total $145,000,000

The one question I have, what law requires the Secretary of State to report the donations made to a foundation she is not legally a part of, other than it was founded in her name? From what I can find, Hillary had no role (at least officially) with the Clinton Foundation during the time she was Secretary of State. While I can understand if you claim she had influence with the foundation, I know of no law that would require her to report donations.

​