Boom: The Clintons, US uranium, Putin, and the FBI
By Jon Rappoport
In 2016, long before the current news story broke about the
FBI concealing a multi-year investigation into Russian bribery, the
Clintons, US uranium, and Russia, I wrote about the scandal and spelled
it out in simple terms.
A writer for the Washington Post then called me and tried to
extract a statement he could use to discredit the story. I declined to
give him anything, except a link to a key 2015 NY Times piece, which he
said he'd "read many times." I'm not sure why he had to read it more
than once. Perhaps he suffers from a mental deficit.
Anyway, here is the piece I wrote then. It's more relevant than ever. Then I'll make some comments on the present situation.
---Cue the dawn sunrise and violins for the beautiful first couple of American politics (the Clintons).
But what about the uranium scandal?
The what?
Before I quote a NY Times piece on this----suppose, just
suppose the beautiful first couple, Bill and Hillary, have been running a
parallel operation to the government, in the form of a Foundation that
is taking in major chunks of cash from people who want (and get) serious
political favors.
Well, current news stories confirm that. We already know that.
But uranium?
Consider this plot line. Follow the bouncing ball.
Putin wants 20% of uranium on US soil. That 20% is already owned by a Canadian mining company.
The Canadian executives want to sell it to Putin.
But because uranium is a US "national security" product,
various US federal agencies have to OK the deal. One of those agencies
is the US State Department.
The State Department is headed up by Hillary Clinton. Her Department says yes to the uranium deal.
The kicker? Those Canadian mining executives, who wanted the
sale to Putin to go through, donated millions to the Clinton Foundation.
Getting the picture?
On April 23, 2015, the NY Times ran a story under the headline: Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation Amid Russian Uranium Deal.
The bare bones of the story: a Canadian company called
Uranium One controlled a great deal of uranium production in the US. It
was sold to Russia (meaning Putin and his minions). So Putin now
controls 20% of US uranium production.
From the Times: "...the sale gave the Russians control of one-fifth of all uranium production capacity in the United States."
The Times: "The [Pravda] article, in January 2013, detailed
how the Russian atomic energy agency, Rosatom, had taken over a Canadian
company [Uranium One] with uranium-mining stakes stretching from
Central Asia to the American West. The deal made Rosatom one of the
world's largest uranium producers and brought Mr. Putin closer to his
goal of controlling much of the global uranium supply chain."
"But the untold story behind that story is one that involves
not just the Russian president, but also a former American president and
a woman who would like to be the next one."
"At the heart of the tale are several men, leaders of the
Canadian mining industry, who have been major donors to the charitable
endeavors of former President Bill Clinton and his family. Members of
that group built, financed and eventually sold off to the Russians a
company that would become known as Uranium One."
"Frank Giustra...a mining financier, has donated $31.3 million to the foundation run by former President Bill Clinton..."
"Since uranium is considered a strategic asset, with
implications for national security, the deal [to sell Uranium One to
Putin] had to be approved by a committee composed of representatives
from a number of United States government agencies. Among the agencies
that eventually signed off was the State Department, then headed by Mr.
Clinton's wife, Hillary Rodham Clinton."
"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."
If you're Putin and you're sitting in Moscow, and the uranium
deal has just dropped this bonanza into your lap, what's your
reaction---after you stop laughing and popping champagne corks? Or maybe
you never really stop laughing. Maybe this is a joke that keeps on
giving. You wake up in the middle of the night with a big grin plastered
on your face, and you can't figure out why...and then you remember, oh
yeah, the uranium deal. The US uranium. Who's running the show in
America? Ha-ha-ha. Some egregious dolt? Maybe he's a sleeper agent we
forgot about and he reactivated himself. And this Clinton
Foundation---how can the beautiful couple get away with that? Can we
give Hillary a medal? Can we put up a statue of her in a park? Does Bill
need any more hookers?
You shake your head and go back to sleep. You see a parade of
little boats carrying uranium from the US to Russia. A pretty line of
putt-putt boats. You chuckle. Row, row, row your boat...merrily,
merrily, merrily, merrily...life is but a dream.
Good times.
Final note: there is a great deal of difference between a
major outlet like the NY Times running their Clinton/uranium piece for
one day---and pounding on it for weeks and months. In the latter case,
they would let loose the hounds, who would probe and push and interview
relevant people and get confessions and parlay those confessions up the
food chain---blowing the story into an enormous scandal---which it is.
The Times had its hands on a volcanic piece...and they let it
drop. Because the ceiling and the limit had been reached. The Times
basically executed what's called a limited hangout, a partial exposure
of a story that was getting too hot to suppress entirely.
The limited hangout allows the venting of steam---and then
nothing more. In this case, the Clinton camp denies there was any quid
pro quo, they assert Hillary had nothing to do with the uranium deal,
and the curtain falls.
Thus you have the reality which the major media did expose,
vs. the reality they could have exposed. The "could have" part would
have changed current history---but it was squelched, and put under
wraps.
Tossed on the junk heap.
---end of my 2016 article---
Now, the Senate Judiciary Committee and Chairman Chuck
Grassley are looking into these crimes, because new reports of
corruption are surfacing:
FOX News: "The Hill reported that the FBI had evidence as
early as 2009 that Russian operatives used bribes, kickbacks and other
dirty tactics to expand Moscow's atomic energy footprint in the U.S. --
but the Obama administration approved the uranium deal benefiting Moscow
anyway."
"Grassley on Wednesday [raised]...the question of whether the
[US government] committee that approved the [uranium] transaction [in
2010] was aware of the FBI probe. The Committee on Foreign Investment in
the United States (CFIUS) [which approved the uranium deal] included
then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton."
As Newsweek reports, that early FBI probe was launched under
FBI Director Robert Mueller. Mueller is now trying to dig up (or invent)
every tidbit he can about Russian collusion with...Trump in the 2016
presidential election. My, my.
Newsweek contacted the FBI a few days ago, asking whether
Mueller had informed the Obama White House about his old FBI probe that
uncovered Russian corruption relevant to the uranium deal that was being
put together at the time.
Newsweek: "The FBI said it had no comment to Newsweek questions
about whether Mueller alerted senior Obama administration officials,
including Clinton, about the [FBI] investigation before they brokered
the [uranium] deal."
BOOM. Are you kidding? No comment? That's tantamount to
admitting, "Look, either way we answer that question, we're screwed or
the Obama White House is screwed, so we're remaining mum. We're
protecting VERY IMPORTANT PEOPLE and the truth doesn't matter."
This should be the subject of screaming headlines from
mainstream news around the world: FBI CLAMS UP ON URANIUM DEAL. FBI
REFUSES TO SAY WHETHER BOSS MUELLER TOLD THE WHITE HOUSE ABOUT RUSSIAN
CORRUPTION IN URANIUM DEAL. FBI COVERING UP CORRUPTION IN CLINTON OBAMA
RUSSIAN URANIUM DEAL.
However, the FBI refusal is buried deep in mainstream stories.
But wait, it gets even better:
FOX: "[Grassley] is calling for the Justice Department to
lift an apparent 'gag order' on an FBI informant who reportedly helped
the U.S. uncover a [2009-10] corruption and bribery scheme by Russian
nuclear officials but allegedly was 'threatened' by the Obama
administration to stay quiet."
"Victoria Toensing, a lawyer for the former FBI informant, told Fox
News' 'America's Newsroom' that her client has 'specific information
about [Russian] contributions and bribes to various entities and people
in the United States'."
"She said she could not go further because her client has not
been released from a nondisclosure agreement but suggested the gag
order could be lifted soon. Toensing also claimed that her client was
'threatened by the Loretta Lynch Justice Department' when he pursued a
civil action in which he reportedly sought to disclose some information
about the case."
The gag order and the non-disclosure agreement are nonsense. They don't apply when enforcing them would cover up a major crime.
I have suggestions for the FBI informant's lawyer Toensing, if she's playing it straight.
Hire at least four top-flight private security firms to guard
your client around the clock, and hope these firms don't have strong
ties to government law-enforcement.
Issue a firm declaration from your client stating he is in good health and has no intention of committing suicide.
Do these things yesterday.
After all, it's the Clintons we're talking about, and Obama and the FBI.
And the Clintons.
And, of course, the Clintons.
No comments:
Post a Comment