Trump’s attorney Michael Cohen was hired by U.S. affiliate of Russian company

Floridatexan wrote:
What I see is that Michael Cohen shopped around for bribes.  Am I missing something?  I don't think so.

Yes... you are missing the same thing by the Clinton Slushfund Foundation. Or don't care when it's dems.

The money trail:

he Firm That Paid Michael Cohen $500,000 Is Deeply Tied to a Russian Oligarch, Records Show

Yet Columbus Nova is trying to distance itself from Viktor Vekselberg.

DAVID CORN AND DAN FRIEDMAN MAY. 10, 2018 11:50 AM

"The news was explosive: A Russian oligarch had funneled half a million bucks to Michael Cohen, the fixer and lawyer for Donald Trump. On Tuesday, Michael Avenatti, the attorney for porn star Stormy Daniels, released a report claiming that Viktor Vekselberg—a Putin-friendly Russian tycoon—and an American citizen named Andrew Intrater had “routed eight payments to Mr. Cohen through a company named Columbus Nova LLC” starting in January 2017. Intrater, who is Vekselberg’s cousin, is the CEO of Columbus Nova, a US-based firm.

The implications of this were immense. Around the time the payments began, the US intelligence community had declared that the Kremlin had attacked the 2016 election in order to help Trump become president. Also around that time, Cohen had joined with a Ukrainian lawmaker and Felix Sater—a former felon who had worked with Trump on Russian-related deals and other projects—to secretly push within the new Trump administration a pro-Moscow peace plan for Ukraine. And in January 2017, Intrater, who had never been a major political donor, made a whopping $250,000 contribution to Trump’s inauguration committee. (Months later, he would give $35,000 to the Trump presidential campaign and the Republican Party.)

So what was Cohen doing hooking up with Vekselberg and Intrater at this point? And why would he even be messing with a Russian oligarch when Trump was being battered by reports of Russian interference in the election and possible contacts between Trump associates and Russia? Avenatti’s revelation—which was confirmed by the New York Times and NBC News—opened a new front in the Trump-Russia scandal, as it expanded into a swampy pay-to-play controversy and merged with Trump’s Stormy Daniels scandal..."

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2018/05/the-firm-that-paid-michael-cohen-500000-is-deeply-tied-to-a-russian-oligarch-records-show/

Ah, c'mon people!

Everybody knows that all this Russia, Cohen, Stormy Daniels, etc etc doesn't matter .... so long as Trump says he'll appoint pro-life judges, back Israel unconditionally, keep the brown people out, and talk tough he'll continue to be golden with his voters.

The ins-and-outs of all these scandals and intrigues are getting too confusing for your average Joe & Jane to keep up with anymore anyway ... so it's easier to just write it off to some vast left-wing conspiracy and tune out.

It's "just sex"... right? Or does that only apply to Dems taking advantage of young interns?

The funniest part is watching them pretend to have some moral credibility... lol.

Nice try useful idiots. Everybody that voted for Trump knew what they were getting.

PkrBum wrote:

Floridatexan wrote:
What I see is that Michael Cohen shopped around for bribes.  Am I missing something?  I don't think so.

Yes... you are missing the same thing by the Clinton Slushfund Foundation. Or don't care when it's dems.

I care about facts, which seem to be a foreign concept to you:

https://trust.guidestar.org/notes-on-the-clinton-and-trump-foundations?utm_source=hs_email&utm_medium=email&utm_content=34524313&_hsenc=p2ANqtz-_QgfFtf4s8VP7RBj2M07KsFOl8RiL1rDTkpFA71YrQP5mNa-QfnT_TUlWy_61m397MGX4ImvU1WvEp9G3GNryXEGe_gw&_hsmi=34600340

Floridatexan wrote:

PkrBum wrote:

Floridatexan wrote:
What I see is that Michael Cohen shopped around for bribes.  Am I missing something?  I don't think so.

Yes... you are missing the same thing by the Clinton Slushfund Foundation. Or don't care when it's dems.

I care about facts, which seem to be a foreign concept to you

You quoted a Mother Jones opinion... LMAO.

PkrBum wrote:

Floridatexan wrote:

PkrBum wrote:

Floridatexan wrote:
What I see is that Michael Cohen shopped around for bribes.  Am I missing something?  I don't think so.

Yes... you are missing the same thing by the Clinton Slushfund Foundation. Or don't care when it's dems.

I care about facts, which seem to be a foreign concept to you

You quoted a Mother Jones opinion... LMAO.

So what? I just gave you a link to a side-by-side comparison of both foundations. Why don't you try reading for a change?

http://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/387625-mueller-may-have-a-conflict-and-it-leads-directly-to-a-russian-oligarch

The Trump Excuse Machine:

-It did NOT happen.

-OK. It happened, but they talked about adoption.

-OK. It was about Clinton, but there was NO collusion.

-OK. There may have been collusion, but it's NOT a crime.

-I knew NOTHING about it until I read it online.

-OK, maybe someone mentioned it in passing a while back.

-There were only 4 people at the meeting.

-OK, 5.

-OK, 8 people. But they were ALL private citizens.

-OK. One of the persons was connected with a Russian state prosecutor. The rest- private citizens who had NOTHING to do with hacking.

-OK. The former Soviet intel officer who attended the meeting was previously accused in U.S. courts of orchestrating an international hacking conspiracy.

-OK, the 8th person at the meeting was an executive at a Moscow-based property firm owned by Aras Agalarov, who has been accused of $1,400,000,000 in money laundering.

-OK, Cohen admitted to emailing the Kremlin. But, the email was ignored.

-OK. My business partner sent a representative from Russia, but it was just politics as usual, except with a foreign hostile government- which ISN'T illegal.

-OK. But, nothing came out during the meeting. It wasn’t what we were expecting.

-OK. We forgot to report 2nd meeting with the Russians. But we were really, really busy.

-OK, it's illegal, but WHAT ABOUT HILLARY?

-Despite what several U.S. and foreign intel agencies have verified, Vlad personally told me that he wasn’t involved.

-OK. Don Jr. was involved with a Russian-backed hacking agency. WHAT ABOUT THE CLINTON URANIUM DEAL?!?

-OK. The Republican Special Prosecutor whom we assigned is biased and he needs to be removed.

-The Democrats did it. Truly.

-OK, Agalarov’s son set up the meeting between Junior and Veselnitskaya in order to pass dirt on Hillary. Clinton’s camp did the same thing.

-How do pardons work again?

EmeraldGhost wrote:

The Trump Excuse Machine:

-It did NOT happen.

-OK. It happened, but they talked about adoption.

-OK. It was about Clinton, but there was NO collusion.

-OK. There may have been collusion, but it's NOT a crime.

-I knew NOTHING about it until I read it online.

-OK, maybe someone mentioned it in passing a while back.

-There were only 4 people at the meeting.

-OK, 5.

-OK, 8 people. But they were ALL private citizens.

-OK. One of the persons was connected with a Russian state prosecutor. The rest- private citizens who had NOTHING to do with hacking.

-OK. The former Soviet intel officer who attended the meeting was previously accused in U.S. courts of orchestrating an international hacking conspiracy.

-OK, the 8th person at the meeting was an executive at a Moscow-based property firm owned by Aras Agalarov, who has been accused of $1,400,000,000 in money laundering.

-OK, Cohen admitted to emailing the Kremlin. But, the email was ignored.

-OK. My business partner sent a representative from Russia, but it was just politics as usual, except with a foreign hostile government- which ISN'T illegal.

-OK. But, nothing came out during the meeting. It wasn’t what we were expecting.

-OK. We forgot to report 2nd meeting with the Russians. But we were really, really busy.

-OK, it's illegal, but WHAT ABOUT HILLARY?

-Despite what several U.S. and foreign intel agencies have verified, Vlad personally told me that he wasn’t involved.

-OK. Don Jr. was involved with a Russian-backed hacking agency. WHAT ABOUT THE CLINTON URANIUM DEAL?!?

-OK. The Republican Special Prosecutor whom we assigned is biased and he needs to be removed.

-The Democrats did it. Truly.

-OK, Agalarov’s son set up the meeting between Junior and Veselnitskaya in order to pass dirt on Hillary. Clinton’s camp did the same thing.

-How do pardons work again?

I really wish that was funny.

You may find this enlightening, Emerald.

PkrBum wrote:http://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/387625-mueller-may-have-a-conflict-and-it-leads-directly-to-a-russian-oligarch

Hannity says John Solomon deserves a Pulitzer. The Hill will now classify his writing as opinion.
The Hill says that effective immediately, John Solomon will only be permitted to write opinion pieces

Blog ››› May 14, 2018 4:09 PM EDT ››› JOHN WHITEHOUSE





https://www.mediamatters.org/blog/2018/05/14/Hannity-says-John-Solomon-deserves-a-Pulitzer-The-Hill-will-now-classify-his-writing-as-op/220202

Welcome to the sleazy underworld of international finance and Russian interference. My question is why are they stopping at the Trumpet and his clowns??? There is rot in the system and it ALL needs to be cut out.. The hypocrisy of the left is astounding, if the below isn't an attempt to buy influence nothing is....

"The New York Times reported in 2015 that “shortly after the Russians announced their intention to acquire a majority stake in Uranium One, [former President Bill] Clinton received $500,000 for a Moscow speech from a Russian investment bank with links to the Kremlin that was promoting Uranium One stock.” In total, $145 million went to the Clinton Foundation from interests linked to Uranium One, which was acquired by the Russian government nuclear agency Rosatum."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/yes-the-clintons-should-be-investigated/2017/11/19/d88bb652-cb15-11e7-b0cf-7689a9f2d84e_story.html?utm_term=.72e381c85850

gatorfan wrote:Welcome to the sleazy underworld of international finance and Russian interference. My question is why are they stopping at the Trumpet and his clowns??? There is rot in the system and it ALL needs to be cut out.. The hypocrisy of the left is astounding, if the below isn't an attempt to buy influence nothing is....

"The New York Times reported in 2015 that “shortly after the Russians announced their intention to acquire a majority stake in Uranium One, [former President Bill] Clinton received $500,000 for a Moscow speech from a Russian investment bank with links to the Kremlin that was promoting Uranium One stock.” In total, $145 million went to the Clinton Foundation from interests linked to Uranium One, which was acquired by the Russian government nuclear agency Rosatum."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/yes-the-clintons-should-be-investigated/2017/11/19/d88bb652-cb15-11e7-b0cf-7689a9f2d84e_story.html?utm_term=.72e381c85850

Another lying right-wing hack...Bush speechwriter...torture apologist.



https://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/thiessen_marc/

Oh, my...look at this:

Black, Manafort, Stone and Kelly

https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Black,_Manafort,_Stone_and_Kelly

People
Charles R. Black, Jr., Principal. Worked for the presidential campaign of Senator John McCain

Paul J. Manafort, Jr., Principal. In 1981, appointed by President Reagan to the Board of Directors of the Overseas Private Investment Corporation

Roger J. Stone, Principal. Dirty-tricks operative who specializes in opposition research for the Republican National Committee

Peter G. Kelly, Principal

Lee Atwater, Partner, advisor of U.S. Presidents Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, and George H.W. Bush[6]

You just used a Soros propaganda site a few posts ago... LMAO..!!

Tribute to a Bob

PkrBum wrote:You just used a Soros propaganda site a few posts ago... LMAO..!!

KMA, douchebag.

MON, MAY 14TH, 2018 BY JASON EASLEY

Reporter Calls Out Trump’s Illegal $500 Million Kickback From China

The White House had no answer when asked about $500 million in funding that the Trump Organization is getting from the Chinese government for a project in Indonesia and couldn’t explain how this is not an Emoluments Clause violation.


Transcript:

Q: The Trump Organization is involved in a project in Indonesia building hotels, golf course, residences. It is getting up to $500 million in backing from the Chinese government. Can you tell — or explain the administration’s perspective on, a, how this wouldn’t violate the emoluments clause, and, B, how it wouldn’t violate the president’s own promise that his private organization would not be getting involved in new foreign deals while he was president?

Raj Shah: I’ll have to refer you to the Trump Organization.

Q: No. But I mean the trump organization can’t speak on behalf of the president as the president, the head of the federal government, the one who is responsible, who needs to assure the American people.

Shah: You’re asking about a private organization’s dealings that may have to do with a foreign government. That’s not something that I can speak to.

-----------------

Since Trump has not separated himself from the Trump Organization, the money from China is illegal

Donald Trump never divested himself from the Trump Organization, which is why Raj Shah couldn’t answer the question. The Chinese government is giving $500 million to an organization that the President Of The United States is still involved in.
Article I Sec. 9 of the Constitution prohibits any, “Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under [the United States]” from accepting “any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.”

It is not a coincidence that Trump wants to help Chinese telecom ZTE that was sanctioned for dealing with Iran after the Chinese government gave the Trump Organization $500 million. The Chinese bought their way out of crippling sanctions. Trump isn’t just corrupt. He’s criminal, and reporters to call out this corruption each day during the White House briefing. Reporters may not get answers, but they need to open the eyes of the American people to what is the real motivation behind this administration’s decisions.

For more discussion about this story join our Rachel Maddow and MSNBC group.

https://www.politicususa.com/2018/05/14/reporter-calls-out-trumps-illegal-500-million-kicckback.html

Floridatexan wrote:

gatorfan wrote:Welcome to the sleazy underworld of international finance and Russian interference. My question is why are they stopping at the Trumpet and his clowns??? There is rot in the system and it ALL needs to be cut out.. The hypocrisy of the left is astounding, if the below isn't an attempt to buy influence nothing is....

"The New York Times reported in 2015 that “shortly after the Russians announced their intention to acquire a majority stake in Uranium One, [former President Bill] Clinton received $500,000 for a Moscow speech from a Russian investment bank with links to the Kremlin that was promoting Uranium One stock.” In total, $145 million went to the Clinton Foundation from interests linked to Uranium One, which was acquired by the Russian government nuclear agency Rosatum."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/yes-the-clintons-should-be-investigated/2017/11/19/d88bb652-cb15-11e7-b0cf-7689a9f2d84e_story.html?utm_term=.72e381c85850

Another lying right-wing hack...Bush speechwriter...torture apologist.

Have someone read it to you. The section I placed in quotes was not an opinion from the WAPO article author but a quote from the New York Time's. Even YOU couldn't consider the NYT's a right wing source. True, they aren't a far fringe left "publication" or political opinion blog from some desperate left wing loon that you like to peruse (and quote) but they are reputable. Try again. Too funny.

Law Enforcement Official Says More Evidence of Michael Cohen's Suspicious Dealings Has Gone Missing

"We’ve accepted this as normal, and this is not normal."

By Cody Fenwick / AlterNet May 16, 2018, 1:52 PM GMT

"There's even more evidence of suspicious financial activity carried out by President Donald Trump's attorney and fixer Michael Cohen, according to an anonymous law enforcement official who spoke with the New Yorker's Ronan Farrow. But this evidence, the official said, has bizarrely disappeared from the Treasury Department's database of Suspicious Activity Reports..."

https://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/law-enforcement-official-says-more-evidence-michael-cohens-suspicious-dealings-has

Did you know that we STILL don't have full disclosure of Obama/Holder gun running to Mexican cartels?

https://mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKCN1GJ2KH

Or irs targeting?

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.wsj.com/amp/articles/the-unresolved-irs-scandal-1525905500

gatorfan wrote:

Floridatexan wrote:

gatorfan wrote:Welcome to the sleazy underworld of international finance and Russian interference. My question is why are they stopping at the Trumpet and his clowns??? There is rot in the system and it ALL needs to be cut out.. The hypocrisy of the left is astounding, if the below isn't an attempt to buy influence nothing is....

"The New York Times reported in 2015 that “shortly after the Russians announced their intention to acquire a majority stake in Uranium One, [former President Bill] Clinton received $500,000 for a Moscow speech from a Russian investment bank with links to the Kremlin that was promoting Uranium One stock.” In total, $145 million went to the Clinton Foundation from interests linked to Uranium One, which was acquired by the Russian government nuclear agency Rosatum."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/yes-the-clintons-should-be-investigated/2017/11/19/d88bb652-cb15-11e7-b0cf-7689a9f2d84e_story.html?utm_term=.72e381c85850

Another lying right-wing hack...Bush speechwriter...torture apologist.

Have someone read it to you. The section I placed in quotes was not an opinion from the WAPO article author but a quote from the New York Time's. Even YOU couldn't consider the NYT's a right wing source. True, they aren't a far fringe left "publication" or political opinion blog from some desperate left wing loon that you like to peruse (and quote) but they are reputable. Try again. Too funny.

You only provided a link to the WaPo article, not the article in the NYT. This was published after the book CLINTON CASH, another trash book by yet another right-wing hack.

The Facts on Uranium One

By Eugene Kiely

Posted on October 26, 2017 | Updated on November 1, 2017


Two House committees have said that they will investigate the Obama administration’s approval of a deal that gave Russia a financial interest in U.S. uranium production.

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.

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.

Now, the issue is back in the news, and numerous readers have asked us about it again. So we will recap here what we know — and don’t know — about the 2010 deal.

The Deal
On June 8, 2010, Uranium One announced it had signed an agreement that would give “not less than 51%” of the company to JSC Atomredmetzoloto, or ARMZ, the mining arm of Rosatom, the Russian nuclear energy agency.

At the time, Uranium One’s two licensed mining operations in Wyoming amounted to about “20 percent of the currently licensed uranium in-situ recovery production capacity in the U.S.,” according to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. In-situ recovery is the extraction method currently used by 10 of the 11 licensed U.S. uranium producers.

Uranium One also has exploration projects in Arizona, Colorado and Utah.

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 in the United States

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.

We don’t know much about the committee’s deliberations because there are “strong confidentiality requirements” prohibiting disclosure of information filed with the committee, the Treasury Department says on its website. Some information would have become available if the committee or any one of its members objected to the sale. But none of the nine members objected.

“When a transaction is referred to the President, however, the decision of the President is announced publicly,” Treasury says.

We don’t even know if Clinton was involved in the committee’s review and approval of the uranium deal. Jose Fernandez, a former assistant secretary of state, told the New York Times that he represented the department on the committee. “Mrs. Clinton never intervened with me on any C.F.I.U.S. matter,” he told the Times, referring to the committee by its acronym.

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission

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.”

As NRC explained in a March 2011 letter to Republican Sen. John Barrasso of Wyoming, the Russian company would have to apply for and obtain an export license and “commit to use the material only for peaceful purposes” in accordance with “the U.S.-Russia Atomic Energy Act Section 123 agreement for peaceful nuclear cooperation.”

In a June 2015 letter to Rep. Peter Visclosky, the NRC said it granted RSB Logistics Services an amendment to its export license in 2012 to allow the Kentucky shipping company to export uranium to Canada from various sources — including from a Uranium One site in Wyoming. The NRC said that the export license allowed RSB to ship uranium to a conversion plant in Canada and then back to the United States for further processing.

Canada must obtain U.S. approval to transfer any U.S. uranium to any country other than the United States, the letter says.

“Please be assured that no Uranium One, Inc.-produced uranium has been shipped directly to Russia and the U.S. Government has not authorized any country to re-transfer U.S. uranium to Russia,” the 2015 letter said.

“That 2015 statement remains true today,” David McIntyre, a spokesman for the NRC, told us in an email.

RSB Logistics’ current export license, which expires in December, still lists Uranium One as one of its suppliers of uranium.

Uranium One, which is now wholly-owned subsidiary of Rosatom, sells uranium to civilian power reactors in the United States, according to the Energy Information Administration. But U.S. owners and operators of commercial nuclear reactors purchase the vast majority of their uranium from foreign sources. Only 11 percent of the 50.6 million pounds purchased in 2016 came from U.S. domestic producers, according to the EIA.

Although Uranium One once held 20 percent of licensed uranium in-situ recovery production capacity in the U.S., that’s no longer the case. There were only four in-situ recovery facilities licensed by the NRC in 2010. Currently, there are 10 such facilities, so Uranium One’s mining operations now account for an estimated 10 percent of in-situ recovery production capacity in the U.S., the NRC told us in an email.

As for production, the company was responsible for only about 11 percent of U.S. uranium production in 2014, according to 2015 congressional testimony by a Department of Energy contractor. More recently, Uranium One has been responsible for no more than 5.9 percent of domestic production, according to a September 2017 report by the U.S. International Trade Commission.

Clinton Foundation Donations and Bill Clinton Speaking Fee

Clinton’s role in the Uranium One sale, and the link to the Clinton Foundation, first became an issue in 2015, when news organizations received advance copies of the book “Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich,” by Peter Schweizer, a former fellow at a conservative think tank.

On April 23, 2015, the New York Times wrote about the uranium issue, saying the paper had “built upon” Schweizer’s information.

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.

Renaissance Capital has “ties to the Kremlin” and its analysts “talked up Uranium One’s stock, assigning it a ‘buy’ rating and saying in a July 2010 research report that it was ‘the best play’ in the uranium markets,” the Times wrote.

But there is no evidence that the donations or the speaking fee had any influence on the approvals granted by the NRC or the Committee on Foreign Investments.

Back in the News

This arcane bit of campaign trivia resurfaced in the news after The Hill, a Capitol Hill newspaper, reported that a Russian spy sought to gain access to Hillary Clinton when she was secretary of state.

Lydia Guryev, who used the name “Cynthia Murphy” while living in the United States, pleaded guilty to espionage charges in July 2010 and was forced to leave the U.S. Her guilty plea came after the Rosatom-Uranium One merger was announced and before the Committee on Foreign Investments approved it. But there was nothing about the merger in the federal criminal complaint or the press release announcing her guilty plea.

The criminal complaint said that Guryev had been working as a spy in the United States since the 1990s and took orders from the foreign intelligence organ of the Russian Federation in Moscow.

For example, Guryev was ordered in the spring of 2009, in advance of Obama’s upcoming trip to Russia, to get information on “Obama’s goals which he expects to achieve during the summit [with Russia] in July,” the complaint said.

The only reference in the criminal complaint to Clinton was a veiled one. Federal agents said Guryev sought to get close with “a personal friend of [a current Cabinet official, name omitted].” The Hill identified the cabinet official as Clinton.

The Hill story also rehashed an FBI investigation that resulted in “charges against the Russian nuclear industry’s point man in the United States, TENEX director Vadim Mikerin, as well as a Russian financier and an American trucking executive whose company moved Russian uranium around the United States.”

In 2015, Mikerin was sentenced to 48 months and required to pay more than $2 million in restitution for conspiring to commit money laundering, according to the Justice Department.

The Hill quoted the attorney for a former FBI informant in the TENEX case as saying her client “witnessed numerous, detailed conversations in which Russian actors described their efforts to lobby, influence or ingratiate themselves with the Clintons in hopes of winning favorable uranium decisions from the Obama administration.”

The convictions of Guryev and Mikerin are not new, and there’s no evidence that either case has any connection to the Rosatom-Uranium One merger. Nevertheless, the article has prompted the Republican chairmen of the House intelligence and oversight committees to announce a joint investigation of the merger.

On Fox News, Rep. Devin Nunes, the chairman of the House intelligence committee, said that “we’ve been communicating back and forth through different channels” with the FBI informant in the TENEX case.

“You are talking about major decisions that were made at a time when we were resetting relations with Russia that actually happened to benefit, you know, the Clinton Foundation, perhaps other avenues, we don’t know yet,” Nunes said in an Oct. 24 interview with Bret Baier.

It may be that individuals and companies sought to curry favor with Hillary Clinton and even influence her department’s decision on the Uranium One sale. But, as we’ve written before, there is no evidence that donations to the Clinton Foundation from people with ties to Uranium One or Bill Clinton’s speaking fee influenced Hillary Clinton’s official actions. That’s still the case. We will update this article with any major developments.

Update, Nov. 1: This story has been updated to say that NRC now estimates that Uranium One’s mining operations account for about 10 percent of in-situ recovery production capacity in the U.S. That’s half of what it was in 2010, because more in-situ recovery mining operators have been licensed since 2010.

We also added that Uranium One is responsible for no more than 5.9 percent of domestic production, according to a September 2017 report by the U.S. International Trade Commission.


https://www.factcheck.org/2017/10/facts-uranium-one/

And here's a link to THE HILL story. Guess who wrote it?

http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/356630-fbi-watched-then-acted-as-russian-spy-moved-closer-to-hillary

http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/358339-uranium-one-deal-led-to-some-exports-to-europe-memos-show

After the Obama administration approved the sale of a Canadian mining company with significant U.S. uranium reserves to a firm owned by Russia’s government, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission assured Congress and the public the new owners couldn’t export any raw nuclear fuel from America’s shores.

“No uranium produced at either facility may be exported,” the NRC declared in a November 2010 press release that announced that ARMZ, a subsidiary of the Russian state-owned Rosatom, had been approved to take ownership of the Uranium One mining firm and its American assets.

A year later, the nuclear regulator repeated the assurance in a letter to Sen. John Barrasso, a Wyoming Republican in whose state Uranium One operated mines.

“Neither Uranium One Inc. nor AMRZ holds a specific NRC export license. In order to export uranium from the United States, Uranium One Inc. or ARMZ would need to apply for and obtain a specific NRC license authorizing the exports of uranium for use in reactor fuel,” then-NRC Chairman Gregory Jaczko wrote to Barrasso.

The NRC never issued an export license to the Russian firm, a fact so engrained in the narrative of the Uranium One controversy that it showed up in The Washington Post’s official fact-checker site this week. “We have noted repeatedly that extracted uranium could not be exported by Russia without a license, which Rosatom does not have,” the Post reported on Monday, linking to the 2011 Barrasso letter.

Yet NRC memos reviewed by The Hill show that it did approve the shipment of yellowcake uranium — the raw material used to make nuclear fuel and weapons — from the Russian-owned mines in the United States to Canada in 2012 through a third party. Later, the Obama administration approved some of that uranium going all the way to Europe, government documents show.

NRC officials said they could not disclose the total amount of uranium that Uranium One exported because the information is proprietary. They did, however, say that the shipments only lasted from 2012 to 2014 and that they are unaware of any exports since then.

NRC officials told The Hill that Uranium One exports flowed from Wyoming to Canada and on to Europe between 2012 and 2014, and the approval involved a process with multiple agencies.

Rather than give Rosatom a direct export license — which would have raised red flags inside a Congress already suspicious of the deal — the NRC in 2012 authorized an amendment to an existing export license for a Paducah, Ky.-based trucking firm called RSB Logistics Services Inc. to simply add Uranium One to the list of clients whose uranium it could move to Canada.

The license, reviewed by The Hill, is dated March 16, 2012, and it increased the amount of uranium ore concentrate that RSB Logistics could ship to the Cameco Corp. plant in Ontario from 7,500,000 kilograms to 12,000,000 kilograms and added Uranium One to the “other parties to Export.”

The move escaped notice in Congress.

Officials at RSB, Cameco and Rosatom did not return repeated phone calls or emails seeking comment.

PkrBum wrote:Did you know that we STILL don't have full disclosure of Obama/Holder gun running to Mexican cartels?

https://mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKCN1GJ2KH

Or irs targeting?

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.wsj.com/amp/articles/the-unresolved-irs-scandal-1525905500

So why doesn't Sessions have DOJ look into all these alleged misdeeds of the Obama administration?   Oh, wait .... they already did.  There's no "there", there.

Whatever happened to "lock her up, lock her up" ??   It's been 18 months now & Trump hasn't made a single move toward that end.

Truth is, whatever else one might think of the man .... Sessions is a talented lawyer & prosecutor.  He knows not to ask questions unless you already know the answers and never indict unless you are prepared to prevail at trial (he also knows when it's ethically proper to recuse oneself from an investigation) ... and he knows the answer is "There's no there, there" and they would never prevail in a criminal proceeding ... that's why neither the Trump administration nor the Republican leadership in Congress have lifted hardly a finger to further investigate these allegations (beyond what they've already been investigated)

EmeraldGhost wrote:

PkrBum wrote:Did you know that we STILL don't have full disclosure of Obama/Holder gun running to Mexican cartels?

https://mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKCN1GJ2KH

Or irs targeting?

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.wsj.com/amp/articles/the-unresolved-irs-scandal-1525905500

So why doesn't Sessions have DOJ look into all these alleged misdeeds of the Obama administration?   Oh, wait .... they already did.  There's no "there", there.

Whatever happened to "lock her up, lock her up" ??   It's been 18 months now & Trump hasn't made a single move toward that end.

Truth is, whatever else one might think of the man .... Sessions is a talented lawyer & prosecutor.  He knows not to ask questions unless you already know the answers and never indict unless you are prepared to prevail at trial (he also knows when it's ethically proper to recuse oneself from an investigation)  ... and he knows the answer is "There's no there, there" and they would never prevail in a criminal proceeding ... that's why neither the Trump administration nor the Republican leadership in Congress have lifted hardly a finger to further investigate these allegations (beyond what they've already been investigated)

You do realize that Lerner and holder were held in contempt? With holder even becoming the first ag in history to be impeached? Nothing there? Lol... ok dude. Just because the obfuscation was expertly applied doesn't mean there's nothing underlying it.