Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Uranium One Investigation - A Fresh Look


Norman Paperman

Recommended Posts

Sessions, trying to save his job, has ordered a new look at the Uranium One deal.

 

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/prosecutors-ask-fbi-agents-info-uranium-one-deal-n831436

 

 

On the orders of Attorney General Jeff Sessions, Justice Department prosecutors have begun asking FBI agents to explain the evidence they found in a now dormant criminal investigation into a controversial uranium deal that critics have linked to Bill and Hillary Clinton, multiple law enforcement officials told NBC News. 

The interviews with FBI agents are part of the Justice Department's effort to fulfill a promise an assistant attorney general made to Congress last month to examine whether a special counsel was warranted to look into what has become known as the Uranium One deal, a senior Justice Department official said. 

At issue is a 2010 transaction in which the Obama Administration allowed the sale of U.S. uranium mining facilities to Russia's state atomic energy company. Hillary Clinton was secretary of state at the time, and the State Department was one of nine agencies that agreed to approve the deal after finding no threat to U.S. national security.

:popcorn:

That should keep Trump and Fox News sated for a while. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Norman Paperman said:

On the orders of Attorney General Jeff Sessions, Justice Department prosecutors have begun asking FBI agents to explain the evidence they found in a now dormant criminal investigation into a controversial uranium deal that critics have linked to Bill and Hillary Clinton, multiple law enforcement officials told NBC News. 

What I find funny about this is it's not a reopening of the investigation, just looking back at what was already determined.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Keith Boykin‏Verified account @keithboykin

Uranium One deal was approved by:

1. The President

2. Nuclear Regulatory Comm.

3. Treasury

4. Justice

5. Homeland Security

6. Commerce

7. Pentagon

8. State Dept.

9. Energy

10. USTR

11. OSTP

12. State of Utah

13. Canada

But it's Hillary Clinton's deal.

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Norman Paperman said:

Sessions, trying to save his job, has ordered a new look at the Uranium One deal.

 

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/prosecutors-ask-fbi-agents-info-uranium-one-deal-n831436

On the orders of Attorney General Jeff Sessions, Justice Department prosecutors have begun asking FBI agents to explain the evidence they found in a now dormant criminal investigation into a controversial uranium deal that critics have linked to Bill and Hillary Clinton, multiple law enforcement officials told NBC News. 

The interviews with FBI agents are part of the Justice Department's effort to fulfill a promise an assistant attorney general made to Congress last month to examine whether a special counsel was warranted to look into what has become known as the Uranium One deal, a senior Justice Department official said. 

At issue is a 2010 transaction in which the Obama Administration allowed the sale of U.S. uranium mining facilities to Russia's state atomic energy company. Hillary Clinton was secretary of state at the time, and the State Department was one of nine agencies that agreed to approve the deal after finding no threat to U.S. national security.

:popcorn:

That should keep Trump and Fox News sated for a while. 

I haven't followed all the details, but this seems entirely appropriate on Sessions's part, right? If a member of Congress wants the Uranium One thing investigated, the DOJ should do an initial evaluation, which should include interviewing FBI agents who have relevant information.

I assume the evaluation will conclude that there's nothing new to pursue and further investigation would be unwarranted. But the evaluation has to be done before a conclusion can be reached.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

I haven't followed all the details, but this seems entirely appropriate on Sessions's part, right? If a member of Congress wants the Uranium One thing investigated, the DOJ should do an initial evaluation, which should include interviewing FBI agents who have relevant information.

I assume the evaluation will conclude that there's nothing new to pursue and further investigation would be unwarranted. But the evaluation has to be done before a conclusion can be reached.

Yeah, it's complicated a bit because Sessions promised to recuse himself in any Clinton matter, but the last time it came up, he promised he'd have senior DOJ leadership evaluate whether reopening the case was appropriate.  I think he's trying to look responsive to the request while still protecting his workforce.  At least, that's how I'd interpret the action if it were Attorney General Neal Katyal ordering a re-review of the Trump case.  It's easy to suspect the worst in Sessions, but on the face of what's said, I have to give him the benefit of the doubt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The thing that is most galling about this whole cluster is that it's predicated on the assumption that a segment of Trump's base is completely ignorant of the details and will happily stay that way forever, just out of pure tribalism, hatred of Hillary, and refusal to investigate for themselves and engage in some indepenent critical thought. That's all this is. That's why this is being weaponized, because it's advantageous that some people are gullible enough to believe it. The people in congress, DOJ, FBI etc. that actually know the details already know it's horse####. We should all be offended to have our intelligence nakedly insulted like this, and angry that tax dollars are being flushed down the crapper over a huge sham.

  • Like 9
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, McGarnicle said:

The thing that is most galling about this whole cluster is that it's predicated on the assumption that a segment of Trump's base is completely ignorant of the details and will happily stay that way forever, just out of pure tribalism, hatred of Hillary, and refusal to investigate for themselves and engage in some indepenent critical thought. That's all this is. That's why this is being weaponized, because it's advantageous that some people are gullible enough to believe it. The people in congress, DOJ, FBI etc. that actually know the details already know it's horse####. We should all be offended to have our intelligence nakedly insulted like this, and angry that tax dollars are being flushed down the crapper over a huge sham.

I see your point, but Benghazi emails Seth Rich.  See what I mean?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, McGarnicle said:

The thing that is most galling about this whole cluster is that it's predicated on the assumption that a segment of Trump's base is completely ignorant of the details and will happily stay that way forever, just out of pure tribalism, hatred of Hillary, and refusal to investigate for themselves and engage in some indepenent critical thought. That's all this is. That's why this is being weaponized, because it's advantageous that some people are gullible enough to believe it. The people in congress, DOJ, FBI etc. that actually know the details already know it's horse####. We should all be offended to have our intelligence nakedly insulted like this, and angry that tax dollars are being flushed down the crapper over a huge sham.

It's like trying to debate evolution with a creationist.  No matter what you say the creationist will fall back on "It's all just God playing a trick on us to make it look like there is evolution".  

No matter what you say to Trump's base they will fall back on "There is a massive government cover-up and the MSM is in on it."

It gives them their out to read nothing but nonsense.

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, McGarnicle said:

The thing that is most galling about this whole cluster is that it's predicated on the assumption that a segment of Trump's base is completely ignorant of the details and will happily stay that way forever, just out of pure tribalism, hatred of Hillary, and refusal to investigate for themselves and engage in some indepenent critical thought. That's all this is. That's why this is being weaponized, because it's advantageous that some people are gullible enough to believe it. The people in congress, DOJ, FBI etc. that actually know the details already know it's horse####. We should all be offended to have our intelligence nakedly insulted like this, and angry that tax dollars are being flushed down the crapper over a huge sham.

Assumption? It is clearly the case

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

I haven't followed all the details, but this seems entirely appropriate on Sessions's part, right? If a member of Congress wants the Uranium One thing investigated, the DOJ should do an initial evaluation, which should include interviewing FBI agents who have relevant information.

I assume the evaluation will conclude that there's nothing new to pursue and further investigation would be unwarranted. But the evaluation has to be done before a conclusion can be reached.

How many times does the evaluation have to be done?  Annually?  Anytime a member of Congress asks?  Does it have to come from the majority party, or can any member of congress compel a DOJ investigation into anyone?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Banger said:

the logic of the right seems to be if something illegally was done with Uranium One that it somehow makes Trump's crime less egregious or more acceptable.  One has zero to do with the other.   

I don't get it either. I suspect it's both a justification for voting for a horrible corrupt buffoon (Hillary's just as bad!!!) and a distraction to ensure his approval rating remains comfortably in the mid 30's.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Sinn Fein said:

How many times does the evaluation have to be done?  Annually?  Anytime a member of Congress asks?  Does it have to come from the majority party, or can any member of congress compel a DOJ investigation into anyone?

Anytime a member of Congress asks is fine. We're not talking about compelling an investigation (which would be conducted by the FBI). We're talking about compelling a decision (by the DOJ) about whether or not to refer the matter to the FBI for investigation. ... As I understand it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

Anytime a member of Congress asks is fine. We're not talking about compelling an investigation (which would be conducted by the FBI). We're talking about compelling a decision (by the DOJ) about whether or not to refer the matter to the FBI for investigation. ... As I understand it.

Wasn't it already investigated by the FBI?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

It depends on what you mean by "it." Certain aspects of the Uranium One deal were already investigated. Presumably the Congressman requesting another investigation has a different aspect in mind.

Awfully presumptuous of you...

What is your understanding of this "different aspect"? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Sinn Fein said:

Awfully presumptuous of you...

What is your understanding of this "different aspect"? 

The reason for my presumption is that DOJ personnel are interviewing FBI agents about stuff (according to the OP). If the request was to investigate exactly what the FBI had already investigated and reported on to the DOJ, the DOJ wouldn't have to solicit any more information from the FBI. They'd already have the report and could give Congress an immediate answer.

Plus, I recall the recent article from The Hill containing at least some information that hadn't been reported before, though I don't remember off the top of my head what it was.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

The reason for my presumption is that DOJ personnel are interviewing FBI agents about stuff (according to the OP). If the request was to investigate exactly what the FBI had already investigated and reported on to the DOJ, the DOJ wouldn't have to solicit any more information from the FBI. They'd already have the report and could give Congress an immediate answer.

Plus, I recall the recent article from The Hill containing at least some information that hadn't been reported before, though I don't remember off the top of my head what it was.

:shrug:  very big benefit of the doubt imo.

Seems just as likely that the request is to take a fresh look at the facts developed in the original investigation, and determine whether the current DOJ would bring charges.  I don't see anything to suggest there are new facts being developed to consider a "different aspect".  Just a new review of existing facts, in light of the new DOJ make-up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Banger said:

the logic of the right seems to be if something illegally was done with Uranium One that it somehow makes Trump's crime less egregious or more acceptable.  One has zero to do with the other.   

Eh, this is an emotional appeal, not a logical one. FBI/DOJ = BAD, so when it comes time to report findings on Trump or his administration or campaign their legitimacy will be damaged with the group Trump needs most, the GOP. People under pressure act in ways that show their motives, here Trump & Co. are clearly worried about a future impact from the FBI.

Edited by SaintsInDome2006
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Ramblin Wreck said:

That's a different standard than you originally said of "If any improprieties are found, Lock Them Up."   So shut up about Russia until any improprieties are found and then lock everyone up?

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't U1 already investigated and determined there was no wrong doing?
 

We're not close to that point on the Russian investigation. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Ramblin Wreck said:

Do you feel the same way about all the Russia election stuff?  This thread needs about 2000 more pages to catch up to that mess.

Hmmm.  One of these things HAS been fully investigated & determined that there was nothing “dirty” with regards to Clinton & the Uranium deal.  One of these is in the midst of an investigation where the collective US IC has said Russia DID interfere in the election on Trumps behalf, Trump has hired a number of people who had (& tried to hide) dealings with Russia, Trump himself has tried to obstruct the investigation (which is why we have a special investigator), and he refuses to disclose his taxes which (if he’s San innocent as he claims) could show that he doesn’t have a financial debt to Russian influences.

Yeah, these two things are exactly the same.:lmao:

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Bayhawks said:

Hmmm.  One of these things HAS been fully investigated & determined that there was nothing “dirty” with regards to Clinton & the Uranium deal.  One of these is in the midst of an investigation where the collective US IC has said Russia DID interfere in the election on Trumps behalf, Trump has hired a number of people who had (& tried to hide) dealings with Russia, Trump himself has tried to obstruct the investigation (which is why we have a special investigator), and he refuses to disclose his taxes which (if he’s San innocent as he claims) could show that he doesn’t have a financial debt to Russian influences.

Yeah, these two things are exactly the same.:lmao:

@Koya, need a ruling on the emoji.  Trolling or nah?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, James Daulton said:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't U1 already investigated and determined there was no wrong doing?
 

We're not close to that point on the Russian investigation. 

No.

A bunch of dudes  with 50k posts on an anonymous message board claimed it was debunked. A few of them have law degrees, one of them from Duke, so they are given instant credibility without actually providing any facts.

Another guy has a "friend" who supposedly is "connected" in DC. This guy is known for fabricating stories, not sure why anyone would believe him.

I posted several links in the Russia thread the other day laying out exactly what happened, what was questionable, what was done about it.

The usual suspects all refused to read and comment on the links. They just informed me that so and so said it wasn't true and I was a troll because I was bringing up a topic that did not fit their conspiracy.

The U1 story is just getting warmed up. People can claim it was debunked all they want, but that will not change the facts.

If you are genuinely interested in U1 (and not just trolling with your post) I would recommend reading these two articles. They provide a good start on the corruption surrounding U1.

https://www.themarketswork.com/2017/11/04/foia-documents-fbi-preservation-requests-the-cfius-uranium-one/

 

http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/355749-fbi-uncovered-russian-bribery-plot-before-obama-administration

 

Edited by Bozeman Bruiser
Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Bozeman Bruiser said:

No.

A bunch of dudes  with 50k posts on an anonymous message board claimed it was debunked. A few of them have law degrees, one of them from Duke, so they are given instant credibility without actually providing any facts.

Another guy has a "friend" who supposedly is "connected" in DC. This guy is known for fabricating stories, not sure why anyone would believe him.

I posted several links in the Russia thread the other day laying out exactly what happened, what was questionable, what was done about it.

The usual suspects all refused to read and comment on the links. They just informed me that so and so said it wasn't true and I was a troll because I was bringing up a topic that did not fit their conspiracy.

The U1 story is just getting warmed up. People can claim it was debunked all they want, but that will not change the facts.

If you are genuinely interested in U1 (and not just trolling with your post) I would recommend reading these two articles. They provide a good start on the corruption surrounding U1.

https://www.themarketswork.com/2017/11/04/foia-documents-fbi-preservation-requests-the-cfius-uranium-one/

 

http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/355749-fbi-uncovered-russian-bribery-plot-before-obama-administration

 

Also, here is a video of Shepherd Smith of Fox News debunking the Uranium One thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:unsure:

https://twitter.com/i/moments/943919334241460224

Sean Hannity insults NBC News coverage using an NBC News article

The Fox News host implied that "fake news" outlets CNN and NBC were avoiding reporting on the Hillary Clinton-Uranium One deal. The catch? He linked to an NBC News article specifically about the Hillary Clinton-Uranium One deal to prove his point.

https://twitter.com/seanhannity/status/943881108810293249
 

Quote

 

Sean Hannity‏Verified account @seanhannity Dec 21

Hey fake news @CNN and conspiracy tv @NBCNews read and learn.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/prosecutors-ask-fbi-agents-info-uranium-one-deal-n831436

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, Bozeman Bruiser said:

No.

A bunch of dudes  with 50k posts on an anonymous message board claimed it was debunked. A few of them have law degrees, one of them from Duke, so they are given instant credibility without actually providing any facts.

Another guy has a "friend" who supposedly is "connected" in DC. This guy is known for fabricating stories, not sure why anyone would believe him.

I posted several links in the Russia thread the other day laying out exactly what happened, what was questionable, what was done about it.

The usual suspects all refused to read and comment on the links. They just informed me that so and so said it wasn't true and I was a troll because I was bringing up a topic that did not fit their conspiracy.

The U1 story is just getting warmed up. People can claim it was debunked all they want, but that will not change the facts.

If you are genuinely interested in U1 (and not just trolling with your post) I would recommend reading these two articles. They provide a good start on the corruption surrounding U1.

https://www.themarketswork.com/2017/11/04/foia-documents-fbi-preservation-requests-the-cfius-uranium-one/

 

http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/355749-fbi-uncovered-russian-bribery-plot-before-obama-administration

 

:lmao::lmao::lmao:

 

Anytime, any day and anywhere you want to debate this with me, I'm game.

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, Bozeman Bruiser said:

No.

A bunch of dudes  with 50k posts on an anonymous message board claimed it was debunked. A few of them have law degrees, one of them from Duke, so they are given instant credibility without actually providing any facts.

Another guy has a "friend" who supposedly is "connected" in DC. This guy is known for fabricating stories, not sure why anyone would believe him.

I posted several links in the Russia thread the other day laying out exactly what happened, what was questionable, what was done about it.

The usual suspects all refused to read and comment on the links. They just informed me that so and so said it wasn't true and I was a troll because I was bringing up a topic that did not fit their conspiracy.

The U1 story is just getting warmed up. People can claim it was debunked all they want, but that will not change the facts.

If you are genuinely interested in U1 (and not just trolling with your post) I would recommend reading these two articles. They provide a good start on the corruption surrounding U1.

https://www.themarketswork.com/2017/11/04/foia-documents-fbi-preservation-requests-the-cfius-uranium-one/

 

http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/355749-fbi-uncovered-russian-bribery-plot-before-obama-administration

 

And for the record, I was the marketing arm of the first hedge fund that bought physical uranium in 2004.  So you can try your best to smear my name or reputation, but that's a fact that I can back up with irrefutable proof and if you're going to slander my name by insinuating that I fabricate stories, you better damn well bring some proof, you cowardly, alias troll. You want to debate uranium with me, step in the ring, turkey.

Edited by General Malaise
  • Like 18
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

I'd like to hear more about this one.

From Salt Lake CIty Tribune, 2010:

 

Quote

 

A Canadian mining company is close to finalizing a deal that will give a Russian company controlling interest in its uranium operations, which include a Utah town, a uranium mill and thousands of acres of claims.

In October, four members of Congress urged the U.S. Treasury Department to block plans by Uranium One to sell majority ownership to the mining company, Atomredmetzoloto (ARMZ), whose parent company is Rosatom, the Russian nuclear agency, to protect national security. Since then, the Treasury Department has approved Uranium One's plans, as has the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the Utah Division of Radiation Control.

"Uranium One has now received all necessary approvals to proceed with the closing of the ARMZ transaction," said Rob Buchanan, head of investor relations for the Canadian company, "and we are on track to close the transaction before the end of the year."

The Canadian mining company has said operation of its U.S. assets won't be affected by the deal. That includes the Utah town of Ticaboo near Lake Powell, the Shootaring Canyon uranium mill a few miles north of the town and more than 10,000 acres of uranium claims in Utah, plus additional holdings in South Dakota, Wyoming and Texas.

Rusty Lundberg, director of the Utah Division of Radiation Control, said his agency's decision to sign off on the change of ownership was based on the company's assurances in correspondence that there would be no changes in operations.

"Day-to-day decisions with regard to the operations at the Shootaring Mill will be made by the management of Uranium One Exploration U.S.A. Inc. in coordination and consultation with Scott Schierman as the Corporate Radiation Safety Officer for the Shootaring Canyon Mill," the company's attorney said in an e-mail to Utah Assistant Attorney General Denise Chancellor. "Strategic decisions with regard to investment and development of the Shootaring Mill will be made by Uranium One Inc."

And that e-mail also said: "Any attempt by ARMZ to exercise control over the license would constitute a change of control under NUREG-1566 that would require the prior written approval of" Utah regulators.

Part of the concern about the deal is that Rosatom has sent highly radioactive reactor fuel to Iran.

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
  • Create New...