It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

FBI uncovered Russian bribery plot before Obama admin approved nuclear deal with Moscow

page: 18
141
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 18 2017 @ 10:34 AM
link   
All of the faux-servatives love Zero Hedge, right?



In 2013, ARMZ paid roughly $2.8 billion for the remaining 48 percent and full control of Uranium One. Finally, in that same year, Rosatom assumed direct ownership of the company, reorganizing it under Uranium One Holding (U1H) and delisting it from the Toronto stock exchange.


Just so we all know what we're talking about ...



Among U1H’s assets are a handful of US projects and exploration tracts. The most advanced among them are Jab and Antelope, Moore Ranch, and Willow Creek – all of which are in Wyoming, developed under the auspices of Uranium One USA and Uranium One Americas. The Willow Creek project is their only currently active operation.

So, to further answer the lead question: Russia, via Rosatom and U1H, owns roughly 20 percent of US uranium production capacity. The share of US reserves is much less clear as economic constraints significantly muddy the picture. Looking at actual production, U1H, via Willow Creek, produced an estimated 210 tons of uranium, or 11 percent of the 1887.5 tons extracted in the US in 2014.

Still, it’s somewhat disingenuous to say this uranium is now Russia’s, to do with what it pleases, or to suggest that any amount of the uranium will end up in Iran. The current licenses – held by the US-based subsidiaries and approved by the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission – do not allow exports from any U1H US facility.


Zero Hedge May 7 2015

(This article is important because it is contemporaneous with another article from the New York Times in which a single unconfirmed statement from a U1H spokesperson said that material was indeed being shipped out of the US.)

So, summarizing again what this brouhaha is all about ... The Canadian company Uranium One WHICH ALREADY OWNED THE US URANIUM MINES under discussion, was brought under Russian company Rosatom control via a merger approved by CFIUS, a ten-member committee, as well as by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

The State Department sits on this committee along with nine other Department level executives. Hillary Clinton did not vote on the matter of the Uranium One acquisition. (Washington Post).

Above, one can see that Zero Hedge focuses on the fact that what the Russians got was American PRODUCTION CAPACITY.

Why is that important?

Again, from Zero Hedge:



The truth is, the US uranium industry as its currently built isn’t all that American. In fact, it’s mostly Canadian. Qualms over perceived threats to national security are misplaced, though not entirely dismissible. The deal further illustrates an already pronounced trend of the decline of US nuclear capabilities and influence at all stages of the nuclear fuel cycle.

Post-Fukushima – and post-shale gas revolution – US nuclear employment has fallen more than 34 percent and exploration and development drilling is down over 80 percent. Relatively low-grade uranium and low global prices stunt the value of US mines in the short- to medium-term. Further out, stricter regulation and a heavier reliance on the private sector, limit the industry’s potential abroad relative to its competitors.

Perhaps more importantly, the deal speaks to Rosatom’s aggressive new growth. Already the world’s most comprehensive nuclear services vendor, Rosatom is now one of the top three producers of uranium by volume worldwide. For the most part, the prize was Kazakhstan and not the United States, which is a symbolic victory at best.


SO ... The US didn't own the uranium production mines in question to start with... Canada did.

Now, someone will probably rightly point out that this article is from 2015, as I pointed out the other day that another "AH HA!" article from the Times was from the same year.

What's going on with these mines in 2017? Well, let's ask the World Nuclear Association:



The US Nuclear Regulatory Commission issued a licence to Uranium One Americas for Moore Ranch in October 2010, to start production in 2012, but development is suspended. Uranium One’s additional projects in the Powder River Basin, including Ludeman, Allemand-Ross, Barge (1770 tU), Pine Tree and Ross Flats could also be developed as satellite operations with final processing through the Irigaray central plant.

Uranium One has some 4000 tU as measured resources (2235 t at Moore Ranch) and 23,000 tU as indicated resources in the state. Ludeman is quoted with 4200 tU total resources (NI 43-101). It also had plans for production from Antelope and JAB in the Great Divide Basin, but these were deferred due to endangered species concerns. Uranium One deposits in the Great Divide Basin of Wyoming are Antelope, JAB, Twin Buttes, Crooks Creek, Bull Springs, Stewart Creek, Cyclone Rim and West JAB.

In 2016 Uranium One sold 24 Wyoming properties in the Black Hills, Powder River Basin, Great Divide Basin, Laramie Basin, Shirley Basin and Wind River Basin areas to Anfield Resources for $6.55 million.


Wow! So, the Russians aren't mining much uranium at all these days, eh? In fact they're SELLING OFF THEIR US ASSETS for multiple reasons.

But, you know, all that's well and good ... but should we ask the question where do we get our uranium from now?

The U.S. relies on foreign uranium, enrichment services to fuel its nuclear power plants

Perhaps a picture can save us a few thousand words ...




edit on 18-10-2017 by Gryphon66 because: Added link




posted on Oct, 18 2017 @ 10:47 AM
link   
Octogenarian Chuck Grassley has always had a bad time with the Uranium One deal.

This thread is based on his questions regarding "who on CFIUS knew what when" about the merger and alleged Russian criminal activity.

Questions, mind you, that have not yet been answered, and for which zero conclusions have been reached.



posted on Oct, 18 2017 @ 10:53 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

So you are saying it wasn't a Russian bribery plot but a ...CANADIAN... bribery plot ? ... You might be right . I don't trust some of our Canadian actors in business and politics ... ETA .... why would Muller make a delivery to Russia ? Why not Toronto ? " Mueller’s Role in Delivering Uranium to Russians Raises Questions " www.thenewamerican.com...
edit on 18-10-2017 by the2ofusr1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 18 2017 @ 10:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: the2ofusr1
a reply to: Gryphon66

So you are saying it wasn't a Russian bribery plot but a ...CANADIAN... bribery plot ? ... You might be right . I don't trust some of our Canadian actors in business and politics ...


I said what I said. I didn't comment on the FBI investigation. Nice attempt at deflection though.



posted on Oct, 18 2017 @ 11:00 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66




I said what I said. I didn't comment on the FBI investigation. Nice attempt at deflection though.
I edited my post


The latest release late last week by Julian Assange at WikiLeaks of a 2009 State Department cable to the Russians raises fresh questions about the objectivity of Special Counsel Robert Mueller (shown), the man named to investigate any possible “collusions” between the presidential campaign of Donald Trump and the Russians. In 2009, then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton directed FBI Director Mueller to deliver a sample of Highly Enriched Uranium (HEU) to Russia. The uranium had reportedly been stolen. It seems particularly odd, considering that the FBI is not under the supervision of the State Department, and that the FBI director would personally make the transfer. Assange released the controversial cable on May 17, the same day that Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein tapped Mueller as an “independent” counsel to investigate any supposed Trump-Russian ties.
www.thenewamerican.com... I thought Wikileaks was a Russian operation ...wtf
edit on 18-10-2017 by the2ofusr1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 18 2017 @ 11:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001


How do we know Trump is donating his salary to charity? He won't release his tax returns.


Kind of hard to release something that hasn't been done yet.



posted on Oct, 18 2017 @ 11:13 AM
link   
So I posted early on in this bomb shell thread and there wasn't a single lefty to come forth with a good argument or add anything of value to this thread..

Seems some things never change!!


While I commend some of the diehard Alt-Left members and their attempt at deflecting, rationalizing, and plain twisting the narrative. You should just stop now. As many have said here in the past about Trump and Russia, where there is smoke there is fire. Well this stories smoke has blacked out the sky, and still you don't want an investigation....

Careful, your political bias slip is showing.






posted on Oct, 18 2017 @ 11:27 AM
link   
Curious why Trump supporters are discussing the FBI in such a manner. It gets confusing to understand when the FBI is fake and the entire Intelligence Community is a hoax and when they should be trusted. I’d like to understand that disconnect.

Is there a general rule to follow that helps Trump supporters know when to trust the FBI? Can someone send me the decoder ring so I can follow along?



posted on Oct, 18 2017 @ 11:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: spiritualzombie
Curious why Trump supporters are discussing the FBI in such a manner. It gets confusing to understand when the FBI is fake and the entire Intelligence Community is a hoax and when they should be trusted. I’d like to understand that disconnect.

Is there a general rule to follow that helps Trump supporters know when to trust the FBI? Can someone send me the decoder ring so I can follow along?



I really don't trust any part of the Government...FBI included.

Do you?




posted on Oct, 18 2017 @ 11:31 AM
link   
a reply to: GuidedKill

Help me understand the existence of this thread. Help me understand when how this is not fake news... it has all the hallmarks... FBI and Russia... it’s confusing. I want to follow along but I thought FBI is fake news along with any assessments backed by the entire intelligence community. And like you just said, you don’t trust any government so... doesn’t that make this fake news? I don’t get it.
edit on 18-10-2017 by spiritualzombie because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 18 2017 @ 11:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: spiritualzombie
a reply to: GuidedKill

Help me understand the existence of this thread. Help me understand when how this is not fake news... it has all the hallmarks... FBI and Russia... it’s confusing. I want to follow along but I thought FBI is fake news along with any assessments backed by the entire intelligence community. And like you just said, you don’t trust any government so... doesn’t that make this fake news? I don’t get it.


I really don't know what you're trying to ask or even say? Maybe this is fake news to you because it doesn't serve your agenda. Who knows. While I don't trust much of what any Gov agency says I am a realist and understand I have to put some faith in the system to actually live day to day.

However saying it's automatically fake news because the FBI said it is a little far fetched. I don't think anyone said the FBI is fake news. I know I sure didn't say that, only that I don't fully trust them or any member of the Gov for that matter.




posted on Oct, 18 2017 @ 11:38 AM
link   
a reply to: the2ofusr1

Snopes



Gosh, you guys are sounding a bit desperate ... are you really THAT afraid of what Mueller is going to find?



posted on Oct, 18 2017 @ 11:39 AM
link   
a reply to: spiritualzombie




Is there a general rule to follow that helps Trump supporters know when to trust the FBI? Can someone send me the decoder ring so I can follow along?

Here is something to ponder.

The same guy that sat on the info (we are to believe that the USAG, SOS and the POTUS were not apprised of any of the information?) is now investigating the current POTUS. The information that he had was serious, and to think that he did not bring that info forward to two of his superiors that were on the board that allowed the uranium deal to go through is preposterous.
These are very dirty people that we had/have in important positions in our government. It is sickening.



posted on Oct, 18 2017 @ 11:41 AM
link   
a reply to: butcherguy

But how do we know any of this is true? It comes from the FBI and therefore hoax, right? Why am i to take this seriously... why would you? I’m ready to get on board but there is a fundamental disconnect I need to understand first or else I might end up believing some other FBI investigation that I shouldn’t. What’s the decoder system? How do you know?
edit on 18-10-2017 by spiritualzombie because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 18 2017 @ 11:44 AM
link   
a reply to: spiritualzombie

Now now, don't turn their own conflicted logic back on them ... they may implode.



posted on Oct, 18 2017 @ 11:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: spiritualzombie

Now now, don't turn their own conflicted logic back on them ... they may implode.


Hahaha!

You guys are too much!

So now you erect the straw man that the fbi is always lying and therefore this must be a hoax.

Sweet. Then clearly you have no problem into a special investigator hiring a bunch of trump donors looking into all of this, and the hillary email scandal.

Great to have you on board!



posted on Oct, 18 2017 @ 11:50 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Lotta whiplash. I want to get on board, but if I believe this FBI thing I might accidentally believe the FBI on other things.



posted on Oct, 18 2017 @ 11:50 AM
link   
a reply to: butcherguy

You're so ready to not only believe every word of The Hill article ... but to make wild speculations (that of course, fit your overall narrative) based on that same article?

Hmmm ... where did the information in the OP's article come from again?



... sources told The Hill.


Oh, yeah. Unnamed sources are the basis for your whole narrative here.

Why don't you let Grassley do his thing, and get a few facts on the table?



posted on Oct, 18 2017 @ 11:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: spiritualzombie
a reply to: Gryphon66

Lotta whiplash. I want to get on board, but if I believe this FBI thing I might accidentally believe the FBI on other things.


Perish the thought.

Also, don't forget that article in The Hill that was used to kick this off is based on, wait for it, anonymous sources.



posted on Oct, 18 2017 @ 11:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: spiritualzombie

Now now, don't turn their own conflicted logic back on them ... they may implode.


Hahaha!

You guys are too much!

So now you erect the straw man that the fbi is always lying and therefore this must be a hoax.

Sweet. Then clearly you have no problem into a special investigator hiring a bunch of trump donors looking into all of this, and the hillary email scandal.

Great to have you on board!


Speaking of straw men ... can you quote me saying any of that garbage?




top topics



 
141
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join