Uranium Scandal

Political discussion here. Any reasonable opinion is welcome, but due to the sensitive nature of the topic area, please be nice and respectful to others. No flaming or trolling, please. And please keep political commentary out of the other board areas and confine it to this area. Thanks!
Post Reply
User avatar
Nodack
Posts: 8517
Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2014 6:50 pm

Uranium Scandal

Post by Nodack »

I have been hearing for over a year from the right about Hillary giving away 20% of our Uranium to Russia. I went to Factcheck.org to get the facts.

https://www.factcheck.org/2017/10/facts-uranium-one/
We covered it during the 2016 presidential campaign, when Donald Trump falsely accused former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton of giving away U.S. uranium rights to the Russians and claimed — without evidence — that it was done in exchange for donations to the Clinton Foundation.

The 2010 deal allowed Rosatom, the Russian nuclear energy agency, to acquire a controlling stake in Uranium One, a Canadian-based company with mining stakes in the Western United States. But the deal required multiple approvals by the U.S., beginning with the Committee on Foreign Investments in the United States. Under federal law, the committee reviews foreign investments that raise potential national security concerns.

The Committee on Foreign Investments has nine members, including the secretaries of the treasury, state, defense, homeland security, commerce and energy; the attorney general; and representatives from two White House offices (the United States Trade Representative and the Office of Science and Technology Policy).
The committee can’t actually stop a sale from going through — it can only approve a sale. The president is the only one who can stop a sale, if the committee or any one member “recommends suspension or prohibition of the transaction,” according to guidelines issued by the Treasury Department in December 2008 after the department adopted its final rule a month earlier.
For this and other reasons, we have written that Trump is wrong to claim that Clinton “gave away 20 percent of the uranium in the United States” to Russia. Clinton could have objected — as could the eight other voting members — but that objection alone wouldn’t have stopped the sale of the stake of Uranium One to Rosatom.
“Only the President has the authority to suspend or prohibit a covered transaction,” the federal guidelines say.

It is also important to note that other federal approvals were needed to complete the deal, and even still more approvals would be needed to export the uranium.
First, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission had to approve the transfer of two uranium recovery licenses in Wyoming from Uranium One to the Russian company. The NRC announced it approved the transfer on Nov. 24, 2010. But, as the NRC explained at the time, “no uranium produced at either facility may be exported.”


After reading this I came to the conclusion that the Right was trying to pin the sale on Clinton alone and that clearly wasn’t the case.

Then I read this.

The Times detailed how the Clinton Foundation had received millions in donations from investors in Uranium One.
The donations from those with ties to Uranium One weren’t publicly disclosed by the Clinton Foundation, even though Hillary Clinton had an agreement with the White House that the foundation would disclose all contributors. Days after the Times story, the foundation acknowledged that it “made mistakes,” saying it had disclosed donations from a Canadian charity, for instance, but not the donors to that charity who were associated with the uranium company.
The Times also wrote that Bill Clinton spoke at a conference in Moscow on June 29, 2010 — which was after the Rosatom-Uranium One merger was announced in June 2010, but before it was approved by the Committee on Foreign Investments in the United States in October 2010. The Russian-based Renaissance Capital Group organized the conference and paid Clinton $500,000.


This information is suspicious and gives me pause. It doesn’t prove the Clintons did anything wrong but, is suspicious and rings alarm bells.

There is a recent developement.

https://www.justice.gov/usao-md/pr/form ... ed-foreign

Former President Of Maryland-Based Transportation Company Indicted On 11 Counts Related To Foreign Bribery, Fraud And Money Laundering Scheme

Executive Allegedly Paid Bribes to a Russian Official So His Company Could Win Highly Sensitive Nuclear Fuel Transportation Contracts


http://thehill.com/policy/national-secu ... nistration
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”.


I thought all of this was just another right wing conspiracy about nothing but, there is enough smoke to make me want to look into this further.

User avatar
Mori Chu
Posts: 20891
Joined: Wed Feb 26, 2014 10:05 am

Re: Uranium Scandal

Post by Mori Chu »

My understanding is that the uranium sale was reviewed and approved by nine different governmental agencies and was not Hillary's decision. Also that it was not "all of our uranium" but only a fraction. And also that uranium scarcity is not the limiting factor in Russia's ability to make nuclear weapons.

User avatar
Nodack
Posts: 8517
Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2014 6:50 pm

Re: Uranium Scandal

Post by Nodack »

I get that. Hillary only represents about 1/20 of the decision to sell the Uranium and it is never supposed to leave the US. The President could override anything they decided anyway. What has me questioning things is the money donations from key players that went to the Clinton foundation. It might be nothing bit, if it isn’t then I want to know. Also there are reports (from right wing sites)that some of the Uranium did get shipped to Russia. The FBI and now the Justice Department are Investigating. The FBI I trust. The Justice Department is Sessions acting onTrumps orders according to Trump himself so I will be extremely sceptical of anything they do at this point and that is scary and unprecedented imo. A President ordering a hit job from the Justice Department on a political rival seems un-Constitutional to me.

I think the FBI will do their job and if there is anything they will do what is right for the most part. If she is guilty then I want her punished. If she is once again found innocent in yet another investigation then I hope Trump has to eat crow.

User avatar
Mori Chu
Posts: 20891
Joined: Wed Feb 26, 2014 10:05 am

Re: Uranium Scandal

Post by Mori Chu »

Here is IMO a good, reliable source on the uranium non-scandal. WaPo lays it all out pretty clearly. The lines being repeated by right-wing media and the current President are simply false and wildly exaggerated.

"The deal gave Russia control of about 20 percent of U.S. uranium extraction capacity, according to a 2010 CNN article about the deal. In other words, Russia has rights to the uranium extracted at those sites, which represents 20 percent of the U.S. uranium production capacity."

"The State Department (which includes Hillary Clinton, Secretary of State) was one of nine agencies comprising CFIUS, which vets potential national security impacts of transactions where a foreign government gains control of a U.S. company. The CFIUS can approve a deal, but only the president can suspend or stop a transaction. If the committee can’t come to a consensus, a member can recommend a suspension or prohibition of the deal, and the president makes the call."

"Jose Fernandez, then-assistant secretary of state for economic, energy and business affairs, sat on the committee. Fernandez told the Times: “Mrs. Clinton never intervened with me on any CFIUS matter.” "

"We asked the Trump campaign for evidence that Clinton or the State Department had more of a role in the deal than any of the eight other member agencies of CFIUS, and did not receive a response."

"Individuals related to Uranium One and UrAsia, including Giustra and Telfer, donated to the Clinton Foundation, totaling about $145 million. The Times reported that Telfer also donated to the Clinton Foundation using his family charity based in Canada. These were donations made to the Clinton Foundation, not directly to the Clintons. As PolitiFact found, the majority of these donations were made before and during Clinton’s 2008 presidential run. So Trump’s claim that Hillary Clinton “gave (uranium to) Russia for a big payment” is not accurate."

"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."

WaPo gives Trump's Clinton / Uranium claims "four Pinocchios."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fac ... nium-deal/

Post Reply