Hillary Clinton role in Russian uranium deal, Incompetence pay to play blackmail or all of the above, Over 90% of uranium purchased by US commercial nuclear reactors from outside America, Why did Hillary not stop sale to Russia?

Hillary Clinton role in Russian uranium deal, Incompetence pay to play blackmail or all of the above, Over 90% of uranium purchased by US commercial nuclear reactors from outside America, Why did Hillary not stop sale to Russia?

“Clinton Foundation quid-pro-quo worries are lingering, will be exploited in general”…DNC email, April 24, 2016 from Wikileaks

“Now, after Russia’s annexation of Crimea and aggression in Ukraine, the Moscow-Washington relationship is devolving toward Cold War levels, a point several experts made in evaluating a deal so beneficial to Mr. Putin, a man known to use energy resources to project power around the world.

“Should we be concerned? Absolutely,” said Michael McFaul, who served under Mrs. Clinton as the American ambassador to Russia but said he had been unaware of the Uranium One deal until asked about it. “Do we want Putin to have a monopoly on this? Of course we don’t. We don’t want to be dependent on Putin for anything in this climate.””…NY Times April 23, 2015

“While it is not clear precisely when Secretary Clinton decided to permanently delete all emails from her server, it appears she made the decision after October 28, 2014, when the Department of State for the first time asked the Secretary to return her public record to the Department,”… Rep. Trey Gowdy

URANIUM FACTS

From the US Energy Information Administration July 11, 2011.

“Over 90% of uranium purchased by U.S. commercial nuclear reactors is from outside the U.S.”

“Owners and operators of U.S. commercial nuclear power reactors purchased nearly 47 million pounds of uranium from U.S. and foreign suppliers during 2010; 92% of this total was of foreign origin.

Historically, U.S. owners and operators have purchased the majority of their uranium from foreign sources. Russia, Canada, Australia, Kazakhstan, and Namibia represent the top five countries of origin for U.S. uranium, and together account for 85% of total U.S. uranium purchases in 2010. Owners and operators of U.S. commercial nuclear power plants purchased uranium from a total of 14 different countries in 2010.”

Read more:

http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=2150

From the US Energy Information Administration June 1, 2016.

“U.S. uranium production is near historic low as imports continue to fuel U.S. reactors”

“Most of the uranium loaded into U.S. nuclear power reactors is imported. During 2015, owners and operators of U.S. nuclear power reactors purchased 57 million pounds of uranium. Nearly half of these purchases originated from two countries, Canada and Kazakhstan, providing 17 million pounds and 11 million pounds of uranium, respectively.

U.S. uranium concentrate production, which started in 1949 and peaked in 1980, has recently been near historic lows. Uranium production was 0.63 million pounds of uranium (U3O8) in the first quarter 2016. At that rate, total 2016 production may be about 2.5 million pounds, only slightly higher than the low of 2.0 million pounds produced in 2003.”

Read more:

http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=26472

So, why would Hillary Clinton, as Secretary of State, allow the sale of Uranium One and control of 20 percent of US uranium to the Russians?

Was it:

Incompetence?

Pay to Play involving the Clinton Foundation?

Blackmail by the Russians?

or

All of the above?

From Breitbart July 25, 2016.

“The Democrats’ newfound paranoia about Russian influence on American affairs was certainly nowhere to be found when Hillary Clinton was cheerfully selling them a huge chunk of America’s uranium stockpile, right after a Russian bank paid Bill Clinton $500,000 for a speech.

The Uranium One story is among the incidents detailed in Peter Schweizer’s Clinton Cash. A quick recap: Uranium One was originally a Canadian company, bought out by Russia’s state atomic energy agency, Rosatom.

Uranium One’s big shots were very, very generous donors to the Clinton Foundation, the “charity” through which so much foreign money flowed to Bill and Hillary Clinton. The New York Times reported in April 2015 about how those donations spiked as the deal for Rosatom to secure Uranium One and its holdings in the United States was brought to a successful conclusion, along with one of Bill Clinton’s biggest paydays ever:

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 Clintons, 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.

And shortly after the Russians announced their intention to acquire a majority stake in Uranium One, Mr. Clinton received $500,000 for a Moscow speech from a Russian investment bank with links to the Kremlin that was promoting Uranium One stock.”

Read more:

http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/07/25/flashback-clintons-loved-russia-enough-sell-uranium/

Was it incompetence?

FBI Director James Comey:

“Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.”

Whether or not the Russians hacked Hillary’s emails, it is now apparent that they have had access to her classified exchanges while Secretary of State.

Blackmail is a distinct possibility!

Did Hillary delete emails related to the Russian uranium deal?

From Politico July 6, 2016.

“The Strange Gaps in Hillary Clinton’s Email Traffic

An analysis of the released emails raises questions about whether Clinton deleted a number of work-related emails—and if she did, why.”

“But then there is an instance where the State Department cable traffic rises and there are few if any Clinton corresponding emails. It’s the case of Rosatom, the Russian State Nuclear Agency: Clinton and senior officials at the State Department received dozens of cables on the subject of Rosatom’s activities around the world, including a hair-raising cable about Russian efforts to dominate the uranium market. As secretary of state, Clinton was a central player in a variety of diplomatic initiatives involving Rosatom officials. But strangely, there is only one email that mentions Rosatom in Clinton’s entire collection, an innocuous email about Rosatom’s activities in Ecuador. To put that into perspective, there are more mentions of LeBron James, yoga and NBC’s Saturday Night Live than the Russian Nuclear Agency in Clinton’s emails deemed “official.”
What could explain this lack of emails on the Russian Nuclear Agency? Were Clinton’s aides negligent in passing along unimportant information while ignoring the far more troubling matters concerning Rosatom? Possibly. Or, were emails on this subject deleted as falling into the “personal” category? It is certainly odd that there’s virtually no email traffic on this subject in particular. Remember that a major deal involving Rosatom that was of vital concern to Clinton Foundation donors went down in 2009 and 2010. Rosatom bought a small Canadian uranium company owned by nine investors who were or became major Clinton Foundation donors, sending $145 million in contributions. The Rosatom deal required approval from several departments, including the State Department.”

Read more:

From the NY Times April 23, 2015.

“The national security issue at stake in the Uranium One deal was not primarily about nuclear weapons proliferation; the United States and Russia had for years cooperated on that front, with Russia sending enriched fuel from decommissioned warheads to be used in American nuclear power plants in return for raw uranium.

Instead, it concerned American dependence on foreign uranium sources. While the United States gets one-fifth of its electrical power from nuclear plants, it produces only around 20 percent of the uranium it needs, and most plants have only 18 to 36 months of reserves, according to Marin Katusa, author of “The Colder War: How the Global Energy Trade Slipped From America’s Grasp.”

“The Russians are easily winning the uranium war, and nobody’s talking about it,” said Mr. Katusa, who explores the implications of the Uranium One deal in his book. “It’s not just a domestic issue but a foreign policy issue, too.”

When ARMZ, an arm of Rosatom, took its first 17 percent stake in Uranium One in 2009, the two parties signed an agreement, found in securities filings, to seek the foreign investment committee’s review. But it was the 2010 deal, giving the Russians a controlling 51 percent stake, that set off alarm bells. Four members of the House of Representatives signed a letter expressing concern. Two more began pushing legislation to kill the deal.

Senator John Barrasso, a Republican from Wyoming, where Uranium One’s largest American operation was, wrote to President Obama, saying the deal “would give the Russian government control over a sizable portion of America’s uranium production capacity.”

“Equally alarming,” Mr. Barrasso added, “this sale gives ARMZ a significant stake in uranium mines in Kazakhstan.”

Uranium One’s shareholders were also alarmed, and were “afraid of Rosatom as a Russian state giant,” Sergei Novikov, a company spokesman, recalled in an interview. He said Rosatom’s chief, Mr. Kiriyenko, sought to reassure Uranium One investors, promising that Rosatom would not break up the company and would keep the same management, including Mr. Telfer, the chairman. Another Rosatom official said publicly that it did not intend to increase its investment beyond 51 percent, and that it envisioned keeping Uranium One a public company.”

“That renewed adversarial relationship has raised concerns about European dependency on Russian energy resources, including nuclear fuel. The unease reaches beyond diplomatic circles. In Wyoming, where Uranium One equipment is scattered across his 35,000-acre ranch, John Christensen is frustrated that repeated changes in corporate ownership over the years led to French, South African, Canadian and, finally, Russian control over mining rights on his property.

“I hate to see a foreign government own mining rights here in the United States,” he said. “I don’t think that should happen.”

Mr. Christensen, 65, noted that despite assurances by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission that uranium could not leave the country without Uranium One or ARMZ obtaining an export license — which they do not have — yellowcake from his property was routinely packed into drums and trucked off to a processing plant in Canada.

Asked about that, the commission confirmed that Uranium One has, in fact, shipped yellowcake to Canada even though it does not have an export license. Instead, the transport company doing the shipping, RSB Logistic Services, has the license. A commission spokesman said that “to the best of our knowledge” most of the uranium sent to Canada for processing was returned for use in the United States. A Uranium One spokeswoman, Donna Wichers, said 25 percent had gone to Western Europe and Japan. At the moment, with the uranium market in a downturn, nothing is being shipped from the Wyoming mines.

The “no export” assurance given at the time of the Rosatom deal is not the only one that turned out to be less than it seemed. Despite pledges to the contrary, Uranium One was delisted from the Toronto Stock Exchange and taken private. As of 2013, Rosatom’s subsidiary, ARMZ, owned 100 percent of it.”

Read more:

Incompetence?

Pay to Play involving the Clinton Foundation?

Blackmail by the Russians?

or

All of the above?

YOU DECIDE.

More here:

https://citizenwells.com/