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.

 

Uranium 1 Transaction records fresh from FBI Vault 8.31.18

page: 1
26
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:
+7 more 
posted on Aug, 31 2018 @ 12:14 PM
link   
Just released minutes ago so I haven't had time to check it out but the timing of release is curious.

vault.fbi.gov...

Will dig in and post more as the day rolls along...




posted on Aug, 31 2018 @ 12:20 PM
link   
So the first letter specifically references an article in which Kiriyenko states:


“I am pleased to inform you that today we control 20 percent of uranium in the United States. If we need that uranium, we shall be able to use it any time,” Kiriyenko said.


tass.com...



posted on Aug, 31 2018 @ 12:21 PM
link   
a reply to: Vasa Croe
Thanks!

Of course, the question is..........is anyone supposed to believe anything from the FBI? I dunno.


+1 more 
posted on Aug, 31 2018 @ 12:22 PM
link   
so if Russia is the enemy why did we sell them 20% of our uranium and why did Hillary and Obama's state department approve this?



posted on Aug, 31 2018 @ 12:25 PM
link   
Because Canada actually owned the mine.



posted on Aug, 31 2018 @ 12:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: toysforadults
so if Russia is the enemy why did we sell them 20% of our uranium and why did Hillary and Obama's state department approve this?


Because as long as they are making money there's no such thing as enemy.

Problem started when the money stopped flowing.



posted on Aug, 31 2018 @ 12:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: sligtlyskeptical
Because Canada actually owned the mine.


Not the one in the US.



posted on Aug, 31 2018 @ 12:44 PM
link   
Pgs. 12 and 13 are interesting, especially the part about ARMZ, a Russian company, the subsidiary of Rosatom, owning 100% of Uranium One now as of 2013.



posted on Aug, 31 2018 @ 12:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: queenofswords
Pgs. 12 and 13 are interesting, especially the part about ARMZ, a Russian company, the subsidiary of Rosatom, owning 100% of Uranium One now as of 2013.



They also withheld 37 other pages it appears.



posted on Aug, 31 2018 @ 12:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: sligtlyskeptical
Because Canada actually owned the mine.


I dont understand how that answers the question.

Yes canada owned rights to mine uranium owned by the US.

The obama admin allowed the sale of that canadian mining company to russia, so that they could mine that uranium.

We were told none of that uranium would ever be exported by teh Obama admin.

That was a lie.


“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.

...

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.


thehill.com...

Trump says nice words about russia = he is a russian stooge that needs investigated.

Obama lets russia by 20% of the US uranium and lies about it not being able to be exported = he is a stand up guy.



posted on Aug, 31 2018 @ 01:10 PM
link   
a reply to: Vasa Croe

It's a few letters and then an excerpt from this New York Times article, Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation Amid Russian Uranium Deal

Not a lot new in what was presented.

Note the redaction codes in use.

ETA:


(b)(7) records or information compiled for law enforcement purposes, but only to the extent that the production of such law enforcement records or information ( A ) could be reasonably be expected to interfere with enforcement proceedings, ( B ) would deprive a person of a right to a fair trial or an impartial adjudication, ( C ) could be reasonably expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy, ( D ) could reasonably be expected to disclose the identity of confidential source, including a State, local, or foreign agency or authority or any private institution which furnished information on a confidential basis, and, in the case of record or information compiled by a criminal law enforcement authority in the course of a criminal investigation, or by an agency conducting a lawful national security intelligence investigation, information furnished by a confidential source, ( E ) would disclose techniques and procedures for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions, or would disclose guidelines for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions if such disclosure could reasonably be expected to risk circumvention of the law, or ( F ) could reasonably be expected to endanger the life or physical safety of any individual;


Explanation of FOIA/PA Exemptions
edit on 31-8-2018 by jadedANDcynical because: exemption codes explanation added



posted on Aug, 31 2018 @ 01:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: jadedANDcynical
a reply to: Vasa Croe

It's a few letters and then an excerpt from this New York Times article, Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation Amid Russian Uranium Deal

Not a lot new in what was presented.

Note the redaction codes in use.

ETA:


(b)(7) records or information compiled for law enforcement purposes, but only to the extent that the production of such law enforcement records or information ( A ) could be reasonably be expected to interfere with enforcement proceedings, ( B ) would deprive a person of a right to a fair trial or an impartial adjudication, ( C ) could be reasonably expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy, ( D ) could reasonably be expected to disclose the identity of confidential source, including a State, local, or foreign agency or authority or any private institution which furnished information on a confidential basis, and, in the case of record or information compiled by a criminal law enforcement authority in the course of a criminal investigation, or by an agency conducting a lawful national security intelligence investigation, information furnished by a confidential source, ( E ) would disclose techniques and procedures for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions, or would disclose guidelines for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions if such disclosure could reasonably be expected to risk circumvention of the law, or ( F ) could reasonably be expected to endanger the life or physical safety of any individual;


Explanation of FOIA/PA Exemptions


Yep....

The b1 redactions on almost every page are what I am cusrious about:


(b)(1) (A) specifically authorized under criteria established by an Executive order to be kept secret in the interest of national defense or foreign policy and (B) are in fact properly classified to such Executive order;


Those go directly to Obama....and almost every withheld page has this code.



posted on Aug, 31 2018 @ 02:06 PM
link   
a reply to: Vasa Croe

Tass? A Russian propagandist publication.



posted on Aug, 31 2018 @ 02:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: Vasa Croe

Tass? A Russian propagandist publication.


Read the letter which is referencing the article before you start spilling your dumbness on the thread.



posted on Aug, 31 2018 @ 02:25 PM
link   

In October 2017, President Trump directed the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) to lift a "gag order" it had placed on a former FBI informant involved the investigation. The DOJ released the informant from his nondisclosure agreement on October 25, 2017,[60][61][62]authorizing him to provide the leaders of the Senate Judiciary Committee, House Oversight Committee, and the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence "any information or documents he has concerning alleged corruption or bribery involving transactions in the uranium market" involving Rosatom, its subsidiaries Tenex and Uranium One, and the Clinton Foundation.[63] The informant's lawyer said that the informant "can tell what all the Russians were talking about during the time that all these bribery payments were made."[64]During a C-SPAN interview, Hillary Clinton said that any allegations that she was bribed to approve the Uranium One deal were "baloney."[65] On November 16, 2017, William Douglas Campbell identified himself as the FBI informant. He is a former lobbyist for Tenex, the US-based arm of Russia's Rosatom.[66][67] On March 8, 2018 The Hill reported, "A confidential informant [Campbell] billed by House Republicans as having “explosive” information about the 2010 Uranium One deal approved during Hillary Clinton’s tenure as secretary of State provided “no evidence of a quid pro quo” involving Clinton, Democratic staff said in a summary of the informant’s closed-door testimony obtained by The Hill on Thursday."[68] CNN reported that the summary document also stated that the Justice Department had expressed concerns about Campbell's credibility due to "inconsistencies between Campbell's statements and documents" in a separate investigation in 2015



posted on Aug, 31 2018 @ 02:44 PM
link   
a reply to: jadedANDcynical

Totally Debunked.
And investigated by Jeff Sessions DOJ too.



posted on Aug, 31 2018 @ 02:49 PM
link   
a reply to: vinifalou

Pfft. I wish you could see my face when I read your incredulous posts.
My dumbness is non existent.
This story has been debunked over and over. The vault isn't going to have any "New" information changing the findings of the actual report.

And stop calling me names. .



posted on Aug, 31 2018 @ 06:12 PM
link   
a reply to: Vasa Croe

These are all just the letters from Congress to the FBI and President Obama, Right?

wonder how many years will we have to wait for the rest of the info the FBI has?



posted on Aug, 31 2018 @ 06:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: jadedANDcynical

Totally Debunked.
And investigated by Jeff Sessions DOJ too.


Nope. It has not been totally debunked. It is still being examined. Do your homework. This issue has not been put to bed in a comfy manner yet. Ongoing.



posted on Aug, 31 2018 @ 07:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: jadedANDcynical

Totally Debunked.
And investigated by Jeff Sessions DOJ too.


I wonder if it was also investigated by FBI agent Bruce Ohr? He's a Russia expert, right?

Tell us more about your non-existent dumbness...



new topics

top topics



 
26
<<   2 >>

log in

join