Could Uranium deal with Russia lead to undoing of Obama administration?

[SunsetBengal]

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/07/02/senate-judiciary-committee-chairman-demands-doj-answer-questions-about-hillarys-role-in-uranium-deal/

I've got a feeling that things are going to get really ugly for not only Hillary Clinton, but the entire Obama administration's DOJ, and, eventually Obama, himself.


by Michael Patrick Leahy2 Jul 2015473


Sen. Charles Grassley (R-IA) Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, is demanding that the Department of Justice answer questions about Hillary Clinton’s role in the 2010 deal that gave the Russian government, through its wholly owned nuclear energy company known as ARMZ, a controlling 51 percent interest in Uranium One, the Canadian company that at the time owned 20 percent of U.S. uranium deposits.
Grassley sent a letter to Attorney General Loretta Lynch, asking her to answer several questions about the deal that was approved by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) an interagency panel on which representatives of the Department of Treasury, the Department of State, the Department of Justice and six other cabinet departments or agencies sit.

The agency, authorized statutorily by the Foreign Investment and National Security Act of 2007 (FINSA) is required to review and approve or reject any foreign investments in American companies, or foreign companies that own substantial American assets, that will have an impact on national security.
At the time of the 2010 CFIUS approval of the Uranium One-ARMZ transaction, Hillary Clinton served as Secretary of State. Former Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Jose W. Fernandez served as her representative on CFIUS.
Former Attorney General Eric Holder headed the Department of Justice at the time of the 2010 transaction. It has not been publicly reported who from the Department of Justice represented him on the CFIUS panel at the time.
“In light of the gravity of the decision to allow a Russian takeover of almost a quarter of U.S. uranium assets,” Grassley wrote, “it is in the public interest to determine the facts and circumstances of the transaction, including any potential donations that could have influenced the CFIUS review process.”
In his letter, Grassley asked Lynch to answer these four questions by July 16:

Quote:1. What role did the Department of Justice play in the Uranium One/ARMZ transaction? Please explain in detail.
2. Please list the Department of Justice personnel that were involved in the Uranium One/ARMZ transaction.
3. Did Secretary Clinton’s relationship with the Clinton Foundation require her to recuse herself from the CFIUS’s review of the Uranium One/ARMZ transaction? If so, did she recuse herself? If the relationship did not require recusal, please explain why not.
4. Was Attorney General Holder briefed by Department of Justice personnel regarding the Uranium One/ARMZ transaction? If so, by whom and how many times? If not, why not?

You can read the full letter here.
Grassley also touched on several problematic issues on which Breitbart News reported previously and first brought to public attention by Breitbart editor-at-large Peter Schweizer, in his book Clinton Cash, released in May. Among the concerns cited by Grassley:

Quote:[B]etween 2008 and 2010, Uranium One and former UrAsia investors donated $8.65 million to the Clinton Foundation. During this period of time, Uranium One’s legal hold on the Kazakhstan-based uranium deposits was in doubt. Allegedly, Uranium One executives contacted U.S. Embassy officials in Kazakhstan to help ensure the validity of their mining licenses. According to The New York Times, the State Department cable explaining the circumstances was copied to Secretary Clinton, among other individuals. In 2009, when the validity of the mining licenses was at issue, the Chairman of Uranium One, Mr. Ian Telfer, donated $1 million to the Clinton Foundation via his family charity called the Fernwood Foundation. In the same year, ARMZ acquired a 17% stake in Uranium One and the parties sought an initial CFIUS review.
In June 2010, Rosatom, via ARMZ, sought majority ownership in Uranium One. According to news reports, Mr. Telfer donated $250,000 to the Clinton Foundation during this crucial time. In total, Mr. Telfer donated over $2 million through 2013.10 In addition, in June 2010, President Clinton was paid $500,000 for a speech in Russia, funded by a Russian investment bank that assigned a buy rating to Uranium One stock and also reportedly had ties to the Kremlin. In October 2010, CFIUS approved Rosatom’s plan to acquire a controlling 51% stake and, in January 2013, Rosatom purchased all remaining Uranium One shares.
If the news reports are true, Secretary Clinton’s involvement in the decision-making process needs to be more closely examined given that the Clinton Foundation was accepting donations from parties who had a stake in the outcome of the uranium deal.

Grassley also noted that “[t]he risk of conflicts with Secretary Clinton at State was so great that the Clinton Foundation and the Obama Administration entered into a memorandum of understanding which, in part, required donations to be disclosed. However, millions of dollars in donations to the Clinton Foundation from executives with an interest in the Uranium One/ARMZ transaction were not disclosed, breaching the agreement.”
In his letter, Grassley asserted that: “The amount of time between filing [of the request for approval of the ARMZ-Uranium One Transaction in the first week of August 2010] and final resolution [on October 22, 2010] is less than the 75-90 day review that, according to statute, is generally the timeline.”
Earlier, Breitbart News reported that the deal was approved by CFIUS only 52 days after Uranium One shareholders approved the transaction on August 31, 2010. In that article, Breitbart noted, as Senator Grassley observed, that Uranium One’s management told its shareholders they had submitted the transaction to CFIUS for its approval during the first week of August.
As Breitbart reported in May:

Quote:The speedy approval of the ARMZ-Uranium One transaction (CFIUS Case No. 10-40) raises the possibility that the deal may have received expedited treatment, though the management of Canadian based Uranium One stated in a Management Information Circular/Notice to Shareholders published August 6, 2010 and dated August 3, 2010 that “Uranium One and ARMZ intend to submit a joint voluntary notice with CFIUS during the first week of August 2010.”

Senator Grassley also noted that “[t]he timing of donations to the Clinton Foundation raises the appearance of potential influence in CFIUS’s review process.”
In May, Breitbart News reported that “[t]wo legal experts tell Breitbart News Hillary Clinton and the Clinton Foundation could be in legal peril for violating United States statutes, as found in 18 U.S. Code § 201 – Bribery of public officials and witnesses.”
As Breitbart News reported at the time:

Quote:When asked if the donations to the Clinton Foundation by defense contractors including Boeing (which subsequently received State Department approval of sales of their products to foreign governments) constituted a violation of domestic bribery statues, Law School Professor and Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) expert Michael Koehler tells Breitbart News, “I’ll answer that question by quoting a former law professor who was fond of saying ‘if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck chances are it is a duck’”
Former Assistant U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York Andy McCarthy thinks there’s enough evidence for the FBI and DOJ to launch an investigation into whether Hillary Clinton broke federal statutes that prohibit the bribery of public officials.
“There is certainly a reasonable basis for federal agents and prosecutors to investigate whether there was an understanding that Secretary Clinton would be influenced in the performance of her official duties by lavish donations to her family foundation, and, indeed, that the Clinton Foundation was operated as a racketeering enterprise, McCarthy tells Breitbart News.

Late Wednesday, Breitbart News asked a spokesperson for the Department of Justice to comment on Senator Grassley’s letter, but has not yet received a response.

[fredtoast]

I didn't read all of this, but how can the United States decide who buys part of a Canadian Company?

I'll have to figure that out before I know what is going on here.

[fredtoast]

Clearly the donations to the Clinton Foundation were not all bribes because they began in 2008 before Clinton was the Sec of State or had anything to do with the CFIUS.

How much influence does the State department have on CFIUS. There are nine different cabinet departments on the panel, and since the Sec of the Treasury is the Chairman it seems like the Sates Department could not have controlled what the panel did. Was the Sec of Treasury bribed?

[fredtoast]

And most important is there any reason that this sale should not have been approved?

[Mike M (the other one)]

(07-02-2015, 04:17 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I didn't read all of this, but how can the United States decide who buys part of a Canadian Company?

I'll have to figure that out before I know what is going on here.

Because the Canadian company sold the 20% of the US controlled assets of uranium to another investor.

The problem now is that Russia will sell what it mines to Iran.


The basic facts: This story is about the sale of a controlling stake in a Canadian company called Uranium One to Rosatom, the Russian atomic energy agency. Because Uranium One controlled uranium mines in the United States, the sale had to be approved by the Committee on Foreign Investment In the United States (CFIUS), part of the executive branch.


A number of investors in Uranium One gave donations to the Clinton Foundation during the time the sale was being considered (between 2008 and 2010), in part through the participation of Frank Giustra, a Canadian mining magnate who was a large donor to the Foundation and who had controlled a company that eventually bought Uranium One (according to the Times, Giustra sold his interest in the company in 2007, before the Rosatom deal).



Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/everything-we-know-about-the-hillary-clinton-russia-uranium-scandal-2015-4#ixzz3elTi1jgI

[fredtoast]

(07-02-2015, 04:11 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: In his letter, Grassley asserted that: “The amount of time between filing [of the request for approval of the ARMZ-Uranium One Transaction in the first week of August 2010] and final resolution [on October 22, 2010] is less than the 75-90 day review that, according to statute, is generally the timeline.”

This is not true.  After notification CFIUS makes a decision within 30 days.  If the matter requires a statutory investigation it can take another 45 days, but the majority of notifications do not require a statutory investigation.   Only 121 of 2155 notifications to CFIUS have required a statutory investigation.  The percentage has risen some recently but the majority still do not require this step before receiving approval. 

[Benton]

Quote:Earlier, Breitbart News reported that the deal was approved by CFIUS only 52 days after Uranium One shareholders approved the transaction on August 31, 2010. In that article, Breitbart noted, as Senator Grassley observed, that Uranium One’s management told its shareholders they had submitted the transaction to CFIUS for its approval during the first week of August.

I'm not following. Shareholders approved, CFIUS approved 52 days later.

A government agency gets something done in less than 2 months, so naturally there must be corruption?



My question is, are we outsourcing this since there's not much of a market for unranium and there's not much competition (the company is Canadian, which is a large uranium producer)?

[*bfine32*]

[fredtoast]

How does Clinton being found guilty of taking bribes harm Obama?

No one had more crooks working under him than Reagan and FoxNews fans think he ascended into heaven instead of dying.

[StLucieBengal]

This administration should have been brought down for selling weapons in Benghazi.... And then transporting weapons through Belfast.

Obama is a war criminal.

But he won't go down because everyone is scared to punish him as is required. They don't want to be called a racist.

[SunsetBengal]

(07-02-2015, 05:01 PM)fredtoast Wrote: How does Clinton being found guilty of taking bribes harm Obama?

No one had more crooks working under him than Reagan and FoxNews fans think he ascended into heaven instead of dying.

Counselor, open your eyes, connect the dots.  If you cannot see the connection between the Secy. of State taking bribes, and the US DOJ turning a blind eye to it, having a connection to Barrack H. Obama, then you must be dumber than you look.  (or at least pretending to be dumb, even dumber than the "rubes" (as you like to call them) in the State you practice law)  Everyone involved in this ordeal is an Obama appointee.  The finger definitely points it's way back to him as culpable.

On the other hand, if this were say, Condoleezza Rice that we were talking about taking bribes that put US National security at risk, you might be taking this whole matter a bit more seriously.

[StLucieBengal]

(07-02-2015, 05:01 PM)fredtoast Wrote: How does Clinton being found guilty of taking bribes harm Obama?

No one had more crooks working under him than Reagan and FoxNews fans think he ascended into heaven instead of dying.

Clinton is dirty. It's almost impossible to connect her bribes to him. But this should hurt her chances. I wonder if the larger crowds for Sanders is because of all her corruption.

[GMDino]

(07-02-2015, 05:25 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: This administration should have been brought down for selling weapons in Benghazi....  And then transporting weapons through Belfast.  

Obama is a war criminal.  

But he won't go down because everyone is scared to punish him as is required.   They don't want to be called a racist.

You need to loosen the tinfoil hat.

[StLucieBengal]

(07-02-2015, 05:34 PM)GMDino Wrote: You need to loosen the tinfoil hat.

You need to educate yourself. Irish MP seems to think there is something going on.

[StLucieBengal]

it was Shannon not Belfast.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

This uranium deal is unconscionable and will almost certainly lead to the Russians developing nuclear weapons!

[SunsetBengal]

(07-02-2015, 07:29 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: This uranium deal is unconscionable and will almost certainly lead to the Russians developing nuclear weapons!

Don't the Russians already have nuclear weapons?  I think that the bigger threat is what St. Lucie touched upon, and that is the possibility of Russia selling the Uranium to Iran.

[*bfine32*]

(07-02-2015, 08:05 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Don't the Russians already have nuclear weapons?  I think that the bigger threat is what St. Lucie touched upon, and that is the possibility of Russia selling the Uranium to Iran.

Of course everybody understands the reasons for further investigation and the possible implication. Some will just try to gloss over it because of the name and the letter that follows it. Do nothing more to this story that change the name from Clinton to Bush and you have totally different reaction.

A message board can be about as bipartisan as a Congress.  

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(07-02-2015, 08:05 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Don't the Russians already have nuclear weapons?  I think that the bigger threat is what St. Lucie touched upon, and that is the possibility of Russia selling the Uranium to Iran.

Of course, my statement was a very tongue in cheek and sarcastic remark about the implied importance of Russia acquiring uranium.

As to Russia selling uranium to Iran, this deal doesn't make that any more or less of a possibility.  Russia is already sixth in the world in uranium production, the US is eight.  More importantly Kazakhstan is number one by a huge margin and Russia would have no problems either acquiring uranium from them or encouraging them to sell directly to Iran.  If there is a real story here, and no one is proving that there is thus far, it in no way shape or form has any real national security impact.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_uranium_production

(07-02-2015, 08:14 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Of course everybody understands the reasons for further investigation and the possible implication. Some will just try to gloss over it because of the name and the letter that follows it. Do nothing more to this story that change the name from Clinton to Bush and you have totally different reaction.

A message board can be about as bipartisan as a Congress.  

Political corruption should be investigated and, if it exists, prosecuted.  Attempting to put a lame national security spin on possible investigations is just that, lame.  Of course this is coming from the same people who can't let go of the idea that we let our people die in Benghazi "because".  So, your point is a salient one, just maybe not for the reasons you thought.

[*bfine32*]

(07-02-2015, 08:35 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Of course this is coming from the same people who can't let go of the idea that we let our people die in Benghazi "because".  

Instead of "because of a video".