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: 21
141
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 18 2017 @ 02:11 PM
link   
a reply to: butcherguy

JW had FOIA to the FBI on any documents they had but they said they had none .JW FOIA to the JD turned up documents on the "MATTER" that showed the FBI was in possession of documents . JW received a note from FBI that they found 30 documents after being pressed in a court filing . FBI said they would need a few months to review documents before turning them over to JW .... FBI either lies ,or is incompetent but one thing they are not is efficient .




posted on Oct, 18 2017 @ 02:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Jonjonj

How many times did she claim Executive Priviledge again?


Are you somehow saying that it is better to refuse to answer with absolutely no justification further than protecting your own and your cronies asses (as was the case with Lynch) than it is to invoke Executive privilege regarding private conversations with the President, for which there actually is precedent?

What?

WHAT?




posted on Oct, 18 2017 @ 02:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: the2ofusr1
a reply to: butcherguy

JW had FOIA to the FBI on any documents they had but they said they had none .JW FOIA to the JD turned up documents on the "MATTER" that showed the FBI was in possession of documents . JW received a note from FBI that they found 30 documents after being pressed in a court filing . FBI said they would need a few months to review documents before turning them over to JW .... FBI either lies ,or is incompetent but one thing they are not is efficient .

When it comes to matters such as these, they are lying.

It would be like NASA saying that they had no photos of the Space Shuttle Challenger during the launch two months after the explosion.



posted on Oct, 18 2017 @ 02:23 PM
link   
I think it's fair to investigate this, though I'm not sure if it was really ground-breaking. The most problematic thing is they knew about the corruption, but still chose to cooperate with Russia. They didn't really jeopardize national security though, the uranium was no more of a danger under Russian ownership than it was under Canadian. Of course that criminal network could have been - and was - used by the Russians, but apparently FBI was on top of things. So what we're really left with are the moral concerns of still making the deal, and the arguable hypocrisy on the left, seeing as they've been extremely critical of other's dealings with Russia. And I'll admit that it's awkward how many MSM sites are being quiet about this.

It's fair to be calling them out on that. Mueller's investigation still goes on, and this might complicate it or add to it, I'm curious to see what happens, but honestly I don't see how the stuff revealed in the Hill's article would compromise Mueller. The political decision made by Hillary and others doesn't have anything to do with Mueller's uranium dealings, or correct me if I'm wrong. Possibly Mueller should have notified certain people, like the House Intelligence Committee, that might be a discrepancy, I don't know to be honest.

That brings me to Hillary Clinton. Those donations look shady, combined with how they weren't reported on time. The kickbacks were unrelated to her. The sources say the Russians moved funds to the US with the intention of benefiting the Clinton foundation, so I don't know what this actually means, did a transaction take place or not? Maybe we'll find out, but at least we know about the donations by the Uranium One chairman, and the money received by Bill Clinton. I'm not a lawyer so I can't say whether it was legal or not, but it does look shady. However, Clinton only had a limited degree of influence on the decision, apparently she could have objected to it, but the final decision rested with Obama.

So, the case for Russian bribery of Hillary Clinton is shaky. We have to assume that the Russians expected her to have significant influence over Obama in the matter, and also that they needed to bribe in the first place, was there a reason not to allow the sale, did it go against America's interests? Then we're also assuming that all the allegations about payments to the Clinton's are true; factually we've got an investment bank paying Bill for his speech, a chairman donating to the foundation, and we have claims of Russian intent to bribe. None of that is even nearly enough to prove anything, though I admit it concerns me and I hope they get to the bottom of this.

Edit: I forgot to say, there's a lot of layers to this, and each side is gonna want to spin things to their advantage as far as possible. So the truth might be somewhere in between.

a reply to: Grambler

Gryphon had a valid point though, some folks have been wailing about anonymous sources in MSM for months and months, saying they where either invented by the press or seeded by alphabet agencies. Then someone throws them a bone, something that supports their camp, and suddenly they have no problem with the aforementioned. It's also true that some have been dismissing out of hand any Russia-allegations. I actually hope this Mikurin-angle will balance things out a bit on both sides, cool some heads off. We'll see.

a reply to: the2ofusr1

You think your link indicates it is not?
edit on 18-10-2017 by Cutepants because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 18 2017 @ 02:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: Jonjonj

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Jonjonj

How many times did she claim Executive Priviledge again?


Are you somehow saying that it is better to refuse to answer with absolutely no justification further than protecting your own and your cronies asses (as was the case with Lynch) than it is to invoke Executive privilege regarding private conversations with the President, for which there actually is precedent?

What?

WHAT?



I said what I said.

I didn't bring up Lynch, you did.

I made a comment about Sessions.



posted on Oct, 18 2017 @ 02:26 PM
link   
a reply to: butcherguy

The essence of what you are suggesting seems to be that:

If the FBI comes up with something bad on politicians you don't like, that's good.

If the FBI comes up with something bad on politicians you do like, that bad.

Does that sum it up?



posted on Oct, 18 2017 @ 02:32 PM
link   
a reply to: Cutepants

The WHOLE "selling our uranium" deal only appeals to relics of the Cold War.

The fact, as I mentioned earlier, is that the US ALREADY gets 83% of the uranium we use from other countries (most of it from Russia and Kazakstan, strangely enough).

The mines involved in the Uranium One deal WERE ALREADY OWNED BY ANOTHER COUNTRY.

The uranium from the deal is not to leave the US under the terms of the agreement. If it does, it's an illegal transfer.

(And there's no evidence that it has gone anywhere but to Canada for processing).

Uranium One is now in the process of divesting itself from it's US holdings ... because there's really not that much uranium left.

I could go on to point out that we've been trading ENRICHED URANIUM to the Russians for decommissioned nuclear fuel from discontinued missiles for over two decades ... but why bother.



posted on Oct, 18 2017 @ 02:40 PM
link   
It looks like some have wandered away from the topic?

So we have these guys doing this stuff at this time:


According to court documents, between 2004 and October 2014, Mikerin conspired with Condrey, Rubizhevsky and others to transmit funds from Maryland and elsewhere in the United States to offshore shell company bank accounts located in Cyprus, Latvia and Switzerland. Mikerin admitted the funds were transmitted with the intent to promote a corrupt payment scheme that violated the FCPA. Specifically, he admitted that the corrupt payments were made by conspirators to influence Mikerin and to secure improper business advantages for U.S. companies that did business with TENEX. Mikerin further admitted that he and others used consulting agreements and code words such as “lucky figure,” “LF,” “cake” and “remuneration” to disguise the corrupt payments.

According to court documents, over the course of the scheme, Mikerin conspired with Condrey, Rubizhevsky and others to transfer approximately $2,126,622 from the United States to offshore shell company bank accounts. As part of his plea agreement, Mikerin has agreed to the entry of a forfeiture money judgment in that amount.


So while he was taking this dirty money to steer his business in particular directions, his company and a company a Clinton Foundation board member had entered into a business arrangement.


The International Uranium Enrichment Center in Angarsk was founded on September 5, 2007
in pursuance of President of Russia Vladimir Putin’s initiative on building up a global infrastructure, which would provide for equal access to atomic energy of all interested parties, as voiced at the EurAsES Summit held on January 25, 2006,
and in pursuance of the Intergovernmental Agreement between Russia and Kazakhstan of May 10, 2007
for the purpose of guaranteed uranium enrichment services provision.


It would seem as though Kazakhstan (Kazatomprom) plays a key role in the Russian nuclear energy industry.

Here we have a direct connection between the company at which these illegal activities took place and a Clinton Foundation board member.

From the OP article:


“Mikerin apparently then shared the proceeds with other co-conspirators associated with TENEX in Russia and elsewhere,” the agent added.


Giustra is a key node in the Clinton Foundation money laundering/influence pedaling machinations.



posted on Oct, 18 2017 @ 02:47 PM
link   
a reply to: Cutepants




You think your link indicates it is not?
Not exactly sure what you mean . Both sides always push back and will go further then need be . None of us have our on prof as facts but share in our opinions on matters that will always have a opponent . The left puts Wikileaks in the Russian camp or has in the past but on this case it becomes harder because they are trying to maintain the narrative Russia/.......= bad . The problem here is that their heroes who are championing the Russian/......=bad narrative could be their own . It looks to me like there is a catch 22 situation for a lot of people except 1 ...Teflon Trump . ant that is what makes this so interesting . you really can't make this stuff up .



posted on Oct, 18 2017 @ 02:50 PM
link   
a reply to: jadedANDcynical

No one has wandered from the OP's topic ...


originally posted by: Grambler

Well it appears that hillary, holder, obama, et al were well aware of the corruption of Russian officials when they sold them uranium.

Maybe the fact that these Russians were apparently bribing hillary with millions of dollars encouraged them to look the other way.

But I guess this is nothing compared to the Russians using Pokemon go to influence the election!


So, we're all right on track with pointing out the mistakes and fallacies related to tying the Uranium One deal to wrongdoing... and really, the allegation that Hillary Clinton was being bribed or that Pokemon were used to influence the election is just standard nonsense.

As to your post, however....

It has long been known that Clinton Foundation employees and officers have had business dealings with Russia.

What do your observations prove that we didn't already know?
edit on 18-10-2017 by Gryphon66 because: Nopted



posted on Oct, 18 2017 @ 02:53 PM
link   
a reply to: the2ofusr1

If the "Russia=bad" is a part of the false narrative of the left, which suggests that in reality as far as you are concerned, Russia is either "good" or "neutral" ... then why are you so upset that they got control of a few uranium mines that aren't producing again?

Are you saying this faux outrage is just more sound and fury signifying nothing?

(At least my straw man has a Shakespearean flavor.)
edit on 18-10-2017 by Gryphon66 because: Noted



posted on Oct, 18 2017 @ 03:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: introvert

We know that there was an fbi investigation into this person and companies for bribery and extortion.

We know that as many as nine people in this company gave money to the clinton foundation, up to 140 .million dollars,

We know that the foundation forgot to disclose some of those donations and later had to.

We know that despite the fbi having an informant and documentation proving illegalities in 2009, none of that info was provided to the public or congress, and a deal selling uranium to the criminals was allowed.

Yet somehow this is just a wild conspiracy theory.

This is why so many are losing their credibility. They demand everything having to do with russia be investigated when it includes trump, and yet proven criminals that are extorting and bribing having their companies give millions to hillary who then in return helps sell them uranium is not worth investigating.

Pathetic.


You're stating things that are patently false. Like this:


We know that as many as nine people in this company gave money to the clinton foundation, up to 140 .million dollars,


No, nine people from TENAM didn't give the Clinton Foundation up to $140 million. Nor did 9 people from TENEX or 9 people from Rosatom. The bulk of the money donated to the Clinton Foundation came from Frank Giustra who was NEVER a part of any of them nor was he ever part of Uranium One.

He ran UrAsia Energy. He left the company and sold his stock when it merged with the South African company, Uranium One. This was a couple years before Rosatom came into the picture and bought 17% of the company in 2009.


We know that despite the fbi having an informant and documentation proving illegalities in 2009, none of that info was provided to the public or congress, and a deal selling uranium to the criminals was allowed.


I'm sorry, but once again this is entirely false. What the FBI had was an investigation into Mikerin ripping off his employer, TENAM, a subsidiary of TENEX, a subsidiary of Rosatom. How does that translate to Rosatom being "criminals?"

That makes absolutely no sense. An employee of a subsidiary of a subsidiary was skimming money off a no bid transportation contract. That's it. He was soliciting a bribe for a no bid public relations contract. They didn't have the goods on the no bid transportation contract in 2009-2010. The extortion part didn't come into play until 2011 when the guy pushed back and Mikerin implied that if he stopped paying, some harm could come to him.

Furthermore, the completely unrelated deal wasn't to sell uranium to anyone. That bridge had already been crossed. The mineral rights to about 20% of the proven uranium reserves in the US had already been obtained by Uranium One. What CFIUS was voting on was a deal by which Rosatom would assume a controlling interest (51%) in the Vancouver based company, Uranium One.

What you're basically doing is trying to use Mikerin, again, an employee of a subsidiary of a subsidiary to characterize Rosatom as "criminals." Which is absurd on its face.

Then, you're claiming that there must have been some conspiracy to hide the investigation — without one shred of proof and despite it not making any real sense when considered objectively — because it was somehow necessary to protect another alleged conspiracy, the details of which you're horribly mangling.



posted on Oct, 18 2017 @ 03:34 PM
link   
You might want to read this it answers questions people have asked its a run down of the deal from the begining.

www.nytimes.com...



posted on Oct, 18 2017 @ 03:43 PM
link   
a reply to: jadedANDcynical


So while he was taking this dirty money to steer his business in particular directions, his company and a company a Clinton Foundation board member had entered into a business arrangement.


Not really. Mikerin was essentially skimming. He was taking a kickback for no bid contracts with padded rates. It's also worth noting again, that the dealings with the trucking company were distinct from what the FBI was initially investigating, which was a similar scheme involving a public relations contract with the informant, "CS-1" and it wasn't until 2011 that they got the warrants to search Mikerin's offices which is how they uncovered that.

Mikerin was general director for TENAM, the US subsidiary of TENEX, the export arm of Rosatom.

This has absolutely nothing to do with Giustra. Giustra is a super wealthy guy who became friends with Bill Clinton in 2005. He had a company called UrAsia Energy. Bill Clinton accompanied him on a trip to Kazakhstan in which Giustra was buying something like half a billion in mineral rights to mine uranium from fields in Kazakhstan.

Not long after that was when Giustra donated almost $40 million form his own charitable foundation to the CF. In total, IIRC, Giustra was responsible for a total of $100 million in donations to the CF plus he organized fundraisers which brought in tens of millions more.

In 2007, Giustra sold his interests in UrAsia right after the merger with the South African company, Uranium One. The new company, Uranium One, was chaired by Giustra's old friend Ian Telfer. BTW, when Giustra sold his holdings, he netted like $45 million.

After the merger, Uranium One starting to purchase uranium mines in the US, starting I believe with one in Utah. Their eventual holdings totaled 20% of the proven reserves in the US.

I don't remember how much Ian Telfer donated to the CF but I want to say it was something like $2.3-2.5 million as part of some project involving Giustra.

Then there was the problems in Kazakhstan when the minister who had sold the mineral rights to UrAsia (now Uranium One) was arrested. The prevailing theory was that this was part of a Kremlin scheme to invalidate claims to Kazakhstan uranium so that they could get their hands on it. This is where the CableGate cable comes into play. Apparently Telfer contacted the State Department because of the precarious situation in Kazakhstan and because it was tanking their stock value.

Now this is highly irregular because Uranium One at that point was a Canadian company. At any rate, an envoy was dispatched from the US embassy to find out what was up. If anything stinks of quid pro quo cronyism, it's that.

At any rate, in 2009, Rosatom purchased a 17% stake in Uranium One. Then in the summer of 2010, they determined to purchase a controlling interest (51%) and because Uranium One had claims to 20% of the proven reserves of US uranium, this required the CFIUS vote in October of 2010.

I don't have the details in front of me, but IIRC, there was a $250,000 donation to the CF in this period from Telfer (from say June to October, 2010 — somebody correct me if I'm wrong).

Somehow this is being twisted into Clintons trying to facilitate Russia but in reality, the foundation had already taken in 99% of the $140+ million before Russia was even in the picture. It's unlikely that a drop in the bucket like $250k had much influence on anything and of course Hillary Clinton was only one CFIUS vote anyway.

So the Uranium One/Rosatom "conspiracy" is pretty limp to begin with. Trying to tie this Mikerin business in with it to make a mega conspiracy involving the above + Mueller + Obama + whoever else is self-deluded wishful thinking spurred on by a hatred of Clinton and a partisan desire to tie the Clintons to Russia because of the Russia/Trump s#.

It's a fail from the jump.
edit on 2017-10-18 by theantediluvian because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 18 2017 @ 04:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Gryphon66

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?


Yes I can.

You commented on spirutualzombie sayin everything from the fbi was a hoax saying to to turn logic around.



Quote me.


Page 18.

You responded to a post saying that if it's from the fbi it must be a hoax.

You said

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

But you feign ignorance and try to play semantic games.

Everyone sees how desperate you are to shill and deflect from this.



posted on Oct, 18 2017 @ 04:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: ausername

Make what go away? The fact that the FBI has been investigating Russian corruption and attempts to undermine the US for years?

The silly connection to the nothing-burger served as "Uranium One"?

Enjoy that popcorn, mate: pickins otherwise are gonna be kinda slim.


Yes they have.

And despite that, Obama's admin sold them the right to 20 percent of the U.S. uranium, the podesta group lobbied for them and received money, they have hillary around 140 million, obama laughed at Romney when he said they were a threat, obama said on a hot Mic he would be able to be more flexible with them after he won, etc.

But despite the fbi looking at this corruption for years, apparently none of the above matters.

Its only when trump got elected that we needed to start making sure no one had connections to russia.



posted on Oct, 18 2017 @ 04:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: butcherguy

You mean the same FBI that cleared Clinton months before interviewing her?

No bias at all.


Nah. They didn't clear her ... Comey had reviewed the actual evidence and prepared for the inevitable outcome.


Yep makes sense.

Comet is apparently omniscient.

See he admitted that the evidence of her breaking the law was their, but said she had no intent (which shouldn't matter)

So somehow he was able to know Hillary's intent without even talking to her.

What a joke.



posted on Oct, 18 2017 @ 04:17 PM
link   
a reply to: Cutepants

I have been and continue to be skeptical of anonymous sources.

The point gryphon was agreeing with spirutualzombie with was that if the fbi said it, it must be a hoax.

Hardly anyone I have seen has made that argument.

The article in the up has the following points that are not relied on by anonymous sources.

Affidavits from the fbi showing an informant in 2009 having evidence of corruption.

Finacial statements some of which the clinton foundation itself released showing these Russians gave it millions of dollars.

The fact that congress people are saying they weren't informed of the corruption case in 2009.

And so forth.

What does this have to do with anonymous sources?



posted on Oct, 18 2017 @ 04:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: butcherguy

The essence of what you are suggesting seems to be that:

If the FBI comes up with something bad on politicians you don't like, that's good.

If the FBI comes up with something bad on politicians you do like, that bad.

Does that sum it up?

You are no different...
Defending Comey when he let Hillary walk.



posted on Oct, 18 2017 @ 04:25 PM
link   
The logic of many on the left.

Associates of trump had connections to russia, and possibly got paid by them, and in the future trump could possibly make decisions to benefit russia

=

This is incredibly dangerous. Our country may have been overthrown! We must investigate eveyone and everything related to trump and russia. Anyone remotely invloved should recuse themselves!

Vs.

Hilarry herself took money from russians, and mad decisions to benefit them.

=

How dare people bring up such a co spiracy theory. There is clearly no harm here! No need for an investigation, and no need for anyone involved with this to recuse themselves from any russia investigation.



new topics

top topics



 
141
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join