This topic isn’t going away. The” Russia Collusion” is the Clinton Russia Collusion. All will come out when Durham steps into the courtroom.
We begin by following the money; the Clinton cash.
The New York Times reports on multi-million dollar donations from a Canadian company anxious to sell American uranium mines to the Russians, which required State Department approval while Hillary was Secretary of State:
The sale of uranium gave the Russians control of 1/5 of all uranium production capacity in the United States. Since uranium is considered a strategic asset, with implications for national security, the deal had to be approved by a committee composed of representatives from a number of United States government agencies. Among the agencies that eventually signed off was the State Department, then headed by Mr. Clinton’s wife, Hillary Rodham Clinton.
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 Clinton’s, 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.
Whether the donations played any role in the approval of the uranium deal is unknown. But the episode underscores the special ethical challenges presented by the Clinton Foundation, headed by a former president who relied heavily on foreign cash to accumulate $250 million in assets even as his wife helped steer American foreign policy as secretary of state, presiding over decisions with the potential to benefit the foundation’s donors.
- Clinton’s
- Kazakhstan
- Canada
- Uranium
https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2015/04/clinton-cash-the-russia-connection.php
(In 2006, the Clinton Foundation received a $31.3 million donation from Canadian billionaire Frank Giustra, who owned UrAsia mining, which merged with another mining company in 2007 to become Uranium One.)
“In 2005, Bill Clinton & Frank Giustra visited Kazakhstan. Giustra, as noted earlier is a massive donor to the Clinton Foundation & a beneficiary of Hillary Clinton’s decision making as Secretary of State.
Giustra’s goal was to buy uranium mines in Kazakhstan. Pursuing this objective, he and Clinton met with leaders of the Kazakhstan government.
The Clinton/Giustra deal proved to be a win-win for all concerned. Giustra received major mining concessions, which were approved by the Kazakhstan government. Kazakhstan got Bill Clinton to publicly praise its alleged progress in democracy and human rights. Clinton received a $31 million donation to his Foundation from Giustra, along with a pledge to donate $100 million more.
The deal with Kazakhstan made Giustra’s company, Uranium One, a major player. It proceeded to buy large amounts of holdings in the United States.
Uranium One, thus, became an attractive target for Russia. Russia made a hugely attractive offer to purchase the company.
Such a deal required approval by the U.S. government, including by the Secretary of State, who then was Hillary Clinton. While the deal with Russia was under consideration, the Clinton Foundation received millions of dollars from key Uranium One shareholders. These contributions were not disclosed by the Clinton’s, despite an agreement Hillary had reached with the Obama White House to publicly identify all donors.
Russia, Russia, Russia
During this period, Bill Clinton also received $500,000 for a Moscow speech from a Russian investment bank that was promoting Uranium One stock.
Hillary Clinton duly approved the deal. It made the Russian company, Rosatom, one of the world’s largest uranium producers & brought Vladimir Putin closer to his goal of controlling much of the global uranium supply chain.
The deal left huge amounts of U.S. uranium under the control of Russia. The New York Times estimates this share to be 20 percent. But Peter Schweizer told Fox News that it equates to up to 50 percent of projected U.S. uranium output.
The Russians are free to use the uranium for any purpose. They could sell it to Iran.
According to the New York Times, when the time the deal was made, both Rosatom & the U.S. government made promises intended to ease concerns about ceding control of the company’s assets to the Russians. But, says the Times, records show that these promises have been repeatedly broken.
Quite apart from concerns about what Russia will do with American uranium, there is also the fact that America is short on uranium. The Times quotes energy author Marin Katusa who says that while we get one-fifth of our electrical power from nuclear plants, we produce only around 20 percent of the uranium we need, and most plants have only 18 to 36 months of reserves.
Katusa concludes that “the Russians are easily winning the uranium war.” Adding the obvious, he notes that this “is not just a domestic issue but a foreign policy issue, too.”
The Russians aren’t the only winners. Frank Giustra won big. So did the Clinton’s who raised tens of millions, if not more, in this saga. Even Kazakhstan came away with something, though whether it contemplated Russia controlling its uranium is another matter.
Only America is the loser.”
Fair Use Notice: This article could contain some copyrighted material whose use has not been authorized by the copyright owners. We believe that this not-for-profit, educational, and/or criticism or commentary use on the Web constitutes a fair use of the copyrighted material (as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. If you wish to use this copyrighted material for purposes that go beyond fair use, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. Fair Use notwithstanding we will immediately comply with any copyright owner who wants their material removed or modified, wants us to link to their web site, or wants us to add their photo.
Today, March 7, 2022 VoterGA announced a 15 point analysis that documents clear evidence that the November 2020 election was manipulated. The analysis comes as ballot images from a year long study were electronically manipulated. The ballot image research was made possible last year when the Georgia legislature passed SB202, which made ballot images public records. The ballot images were collected statewide by a VoterGA Open Records Request team.
