FBI informant blocked from telling Congress about Russia nuclear corruption case

a reply to: Grambler

You haven’t established anything ... you and others keep restating that lie, but it’s still a lie.

The claim supposedly from Donna Witchers in the 2015 New York Times article that you’re all so enamored with is FAKE NEWS. It is unsubstantiated.

Thanks for acknowledging that the State Department (not HIllary) only has one vote in ten. Thanks for acknowleging that you’ve been lying every time you’ve said that Clinton “sold uranium to the Russians.”

The only twisting here is from you and your cohorts. For example, your post here puts the lie to multiple other posts in which you CLAIM that Clinton sold uranium to the Russians when you KNOW THAT ISN’T TRUE.

Now, what else are you intentionally lying about Grambler? And why?

I really don't know if it would be worth looking into under normal circumstances; as was just said, she didn't have the power to stop the deal. So, the Russians got royally screwed if their intention was to influence her decision, even though the deal was passed. But in light of recent events, yes, I'm interested in hearing what the source is sitting on. It's just, the way this has played out so far makes me skeptical.

However, it does look like those businessmen enlisted Bill Clinton to help with the Kazakhstan purchase. It's fair to assume that they donated for that specific reason, not out of the goodness of their hearts. They weren't Russian agents though, they had profit on their minds.

In hindsight it may have been foolish to let Russia take Uranium One. I mean, personally, I don't like it at all, I wish Hillary could have stopped it. Let's not be too alarmist, though; uranium would still have been leaving the US, the Russians just get to make a bit of money on it now. The uranium itself is firmly lodged in US soil, and my understanding is that export can be stopped by revoking licenses, if that should become necessary. The strategic risk is more about Russia gaining economical power by controlling the uranium market. Their influence in Kazakhstan is much more dangerous, I think.

So we've got real concerns here, but they are mixed up with irrelevancies, like Mikurin's crimes, or the idea that Russians are "stealing" uranium.

a reply to: Cutepants

Here’s why the “Uranium One” brouhaha is of no moment.

The United States IMPORTS 83% of the uranium it uses from other countries, including Russian and Kazakhstan.



The mines that were ALREADY OWNED BY ANOTHER COUNTRY are apparently virtually mined out. Production has dropped overwhelmingly over the last five years ....



... and in 2010 and in 2016 Uranium One sold the vast majority of the mines that they owned in the US.

This is much ado about nothing.

1. Clinton/State only had 1 vote out of 10 on the approval of the merger between Uranium One and Rosatom.

2. The agreement required by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in 2010 states very clearly that Uranium One and any other transporter can only take the uranium ore to Canada for refinement, at which time it comes right back to the United States.

3. There is ZERO evidence that any of this material has gone anywhere else.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Yeah I think folks have some kind of video-gameish, simplistic idea of it, where Russia has X amount of uranium and the US had Y amount of it, but the Obama administration decided to hand over 20% of all the uranium the US will ever access, which was then promptly shipped to a Scrooge McDuck-style silo in Russia, where it sits around waiting to be weaponized.

It's good you clarified those points, though even if some of it permanently left the US it would still be a non-issue. By that logic they should be buying up as much uranium as possible from Russia and China to gain an edge.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Who cares if we get uranium from other countries.

Russia is super evil, right?

So why let them control uranium?

And yes, a uranium one spokesperson has admitted that material was sent to europe and japan.

You just say that's fake news, based on nothing whatsoever.

I am sure you can provide a statement from uranium one saying she lied then it it's fake.

And let's not lose site of the big picture.

Trump associates may have meant with russians, which then could possibly have led to trump voting for policies that favor Russia = horrible and worthy of investigation.

Hillary takes millions of dollars for her foundation from russians and does vote in favor of them = fine.

What a joke.

a reply to: Grambler

If you don’t care where uranium comes from or goes to, then you’re just trying to make political hay then, right?

I’ve provided massive amounts of actual evidence from primary sources for my claims, you’ve got a unsubstantiated quote from sources two years old.

But you’re quite clear on the fact that you’ve lied about Clinton “selling” uranium, and now you’re quite clear on the facts that you don’t care where uranium comes from or goes to.

Right there under your own member name.

Thanks for your honesty; you’re just trying to prop up fake news from The Hill by starting multiple threads about the same non-issue.

originally posted by: Cutepants
a reply to: Gryphon66

Yeah I think folks have some kind of video-gameish, simplistic idea of it, where Russia has X amount of uranium and the US had Y amount of it, but the Obama administration decided to hand over 20% of all the uranium the US will ever access, which was then promptly shipped to a Scrooge McDuck-style silo in Russia, where it sits around waiting to be weaponized.

It's good you clarified those points, though even if some of it permanently left the US it would still be a non-issue. By that logic they should be buying up as much uranium as possible from Russia and China to gain an edge.

Should I tell them that we’ve been trading ENRICHED URANIUM TO RUSSIA FOR 20 YEARS for their nuclear material from decommissioned warheads? AKA the Megatons to Megawatts Program?

Nah ... they seem upset enough.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Grambler

If you don’t care where uranium comes from or goes to, then you’re just trying to make political hay then, right?

I’ve provided massive amounts of actual evidence from primary sources for my claims, you’ve got a unsubstantiated quote from sources two years old.

But you’re quite clear on the fact that you’ve lied about Clinton “selling” uranium, and now you’re quite clear on the facts that you don’t care where uranium comes from or goes to.

Right there under your own member name.

Thanks for your honesty; you’re just trying to prop up fake news from The Hill by starting multiple threads about the same non-issue.

Quote me saying in Clinton sold uranium.

Yes. I don't really care where we but uranium from.

I care where it's being sold to.

As the spokesmen said, some of its going over seas.

Again, none of this stresses the issue that Hillary took money from Russian agents, Bill met with putin, and then she voted in favor of a deal giving uranium rights to Russians.

Why shouldn't there be an investigation?

a reply to: Grambler

You don’t care that we import far more uranium from Russia/Kazakhstan than there has ever been in these Uranium One mines???? You don’t care that those mines have already been sold to other groups?

I submit you don’t care about uranium AT ALL. You’re desperate to gin up something about Clinton. You’re falling in line behind the rest of the RW/RT media.

LOL ...you don’t even know the “spokesmans” name ... by the way it’s Donna Wichers.

Hillary didn’t take any money from Russian agents. We’ve also demonstrated that.

Bill Clinton has met with Putin many times, and has done a lot of consultation work over the years all around the world.

Hillary was one of ten votes on the merger deal. Uranium One ALREADY OWNED THE MINES.

I’m sure there will be an investigation ... I said that 50 pages ago and on about four of the threads you’ve started on this same “issue.”

You guys must be really nervous about what’s about to come out on Trump to be throwing this much mud in the water. What’s up? Care to give us a clue on that front?

a reply to: Grambler

Do you have some kind of nostalgic attachment to US uranium? What's the difference, it's the same stuff.

Russia has done a lot questionable things, sure, but economic warfare over uranium would be politically costly for the US, so I can see why no one was eager for that. In your opinion, should they have stopped the sale?

I don't like the Russian state either, but the US government had the right to greenlight that transaction. You can argue that it was a stupid thing to do, but if you want to take Obama or Hillary down you need proof that a) the Russians gave her money, b) it influenced her decision and c) it was in her power to block the sale.

What are the names of those Russians you say donated to the Clinton Foundation, btw? Have they been revealed? Or are you referring to the list with Giustra and Telfer?

a reply to: Gryphon66

I am not nervous at all about what comes up with trump.

If he did something illegal, lock him up.

I don't care where we but uranium from, I care about allowing a country that supposedly is doing everything in its power to destroy the U.S. control over nuclear materials.

I know wickets name, I also know she is indeed a spokesman for uranium one.

You are so laughable as to want us to believe that the nyt did this huge story saying she said uranium is being exported, and not only did she not come out and say this was a lue, uranium one didn't either.

Yes, Bill Clinton received large amounts of m9net from russians, as did the Clinton foundation. You are lying when you say otherwise.

The fbi has an informant that is also saying Russia was bribing the Clintons.


Again, there may be no wrong doing here by Hillary. But there is at least as much reason to have an equal sized investigation into her as to trump.

a reply to: Cutepants

The list with guistra and telfer. And the Russian ban that have Bill money.

Explain to me why trump is being investigated with connection to russia.

I have been told it was because of dealings with Russian agents.

Who are those agents? What did trump give them, or those agents give trump? Why is it wrong for trump to meet with Russians?

Presumably, you would say we'll that's why we are having an investigation, to find the answers to those questions.

Now with hillary, we know Bill and her foundation were given millions by Russians or people working on behalf of getting this deal done that the Russians wanted.

We know that Hillary or her assistant did vote for this deal.

So why again shouldn't we investigate this?

a reply to: Grambler

I still say absolutely we should investigate, if only just to save myself the trouble of arguing about it, lol.

Some more info might come up, I'm open to anything that source may have, but my gut feeling is that we're being played here. I think this Russian angle is being pushed to distract, I'm more open to thinking that Telfer&co where scared of loosing their investments in Kazakhstan and lobbied for Bill and/or the gov to help them out. That's bad, but I reckon that kind of stuff is very common, might be hard to find politicians willing to crack down on it, as no-one stands to gain anything from doing that.

In the future we may find out that some of the donors received their donation money from Russia. But right not this seems to be the big weakness in this narrative. They are intentionally conflating Mikurin's crimes with the donations to imply that Hillary was bribed by Russians.

Bill Clinton did receive 500,000 from the bank though, that is true afaik. But the chain of assumptions we have to make from this is very tenuous. If a dollar Bill flaps it's wings in Moscow, will this make a storm on the other side of the planet? Well, it kinda has, at a delay, but I don't see that it changed the outcome of the U1 affair. So at best they have a collusion that didn't change anything, and only modestly benefited Bill Clinton. If Trump was being accused of this then your threads would be full of righteous indignation, but I say let them investigate their hearts out.

Of course, this doesn't mean the Russians didn't bribe someone. But the fact that they're relying on such slim evidence makes me doubt. We'll see what happens.

a reply to: Cutepants

Well I think there is a little more smoke than you, but the point is there should be an investigation. On this we agree.

And I have made it quote clear on my posting on ats, I don't like the leaks and have not seen any evidence so far, but if trump promised Russians things in return for them helping him in the election, he should be removed from office and put in prison.

Perhaps both or neither of these investigations will lead to seeing wrong doing. But I see no reason why we should look into one side and not the other.

originally posted by: Grambler

Perhaps both or neither of these investigations will lead to seeing wrong doing. But I see no reason why we should look into one side and not the other.

Except, of course, for the fact that the investigation into the Trump Campaign is based on actual events that took place in 2016 and may have directly affected a GENERAL ELECTION.

Your hopeful investigation against Clinton (how many would this be again? 10? 12?) is based on a vague set of fringe theories that may or may not have happened seven or eight years ago.

What's wrong with this picture?

a reply to: Cutepants

Rosatom didn't want emptied out mines in the American NW plains ... they wanted Kazakstan's mines.

Uranium One sold off four or five of the mines in 2010, and four or five more in 2016.

They're working one mine now, which is down in production 1000%.

This is the non-issue of non-issues.

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: Gryphon66

The fbi has an informant that is also saying Russia was bribing the Clintons.

Finally, something in all this propaganda garbage that could actually be a crime. Do you have a link so I can investigate this further? Do you have any real proof, not wild speculation based on circumstantial evidence or twisted facts?

a reply to: darkbake

I'd guess the source article at The Hill in the OP? Link

I have a bit different take on the value of the article than OP does: Link

They've been running a "series" on the same crap the last two days in order to capture a share of the weekend news cycle.

Sounds like the DOJ is investigating.



Grassley has also requested that the FBI informant is allowed to speak without going to jail - as Lorretta Lynch threatened him with.

The FBI "contractor" signed an NDA regarding confidential information, as they all do. If DOJ wants to lift it, they can.

This guy sounds like another Bill Binney in the making; another "expert" who knows nothing to be trotted out anytime the RW media needs a sound-byte.