Slashdot Mirror
Do Russian Uranium Deals Threaten World Supply Security?
Lasrick writes: A recent article in the New York Times notes that the Russian state nuclear corporation Rosatom and associated firms are gaining control of a growing number of uranium resources and mining operations. The article, headlined Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation Amid Russian Uranium Deal focuses on donations to charities connected to former US President Bill Clinton and his family, made by businessmen who stood to profit from the sale of Uranium One, a Canadian company with worldwide uranium-mining interests. But a major premise of the article is that Russian uranium control threatens the security of the global uranium supply. Steve Fetter and Erich Schneider demolish the idea that Russian control of uranium stocks is a threat to global security.
or threatens profit transfer from one company to another?
by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
Hillary Clinton was bribed to grease the sale of 20% of America’s uranium production to Russia, and then it was covered up by lying about a meeting at her home with the principals, and by erasing emails. We might know for sure whether there was or was not bribery, if she hadn’t wiped out thousands of emails.
The article, headlined Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation Amid Russian Uranium Deal
Is completely wrong if it's implying that Sec. Clinton was the only person involved in approving the deal. She didn't have veto authority (only the president does) and she was part of a panel of 8 other members who also approved the deal. If she were the only person to approve or she was the deciding factor, the accusation might have merit and more examination done. She wasn't directly involved in the deal, there's no indication that she was a deciding factor, and there's little indication that she personally profits from money donated to the Clinton Foundation. There might be questions about the sources of money for the CF, but to imply that there's some sort of quid pro quo going on is just baseless.
http://www.factcheck.org/2015/...
America stands to benefit
As a former shareholder, I can tell you that initially, Russian state (Rosatom) bought 50% of the company and they gave every shareholder a nice dividend. I think it was something like $1.06/share dividend, which was about a year after 2008 crash. That was a very nice deal and Rosatom said they had NO INTENTION of taking over. Uranium One said it was beneficial transaction to "smooth things out" in Kazakhstan, where coincidentally Cameco had problems.. Smells like politics interfering with business, but well... so be it.
Share value went up and at one time it was $7. The Fukushima happened and everything uranium crashed, including Uranium One. Few years later, Rosatom announced they will take over the rest. And now they own everything. In the meantime, there were some "funny loans", like bonds taken out in Rubles, funny option dealings with Uranium prices, but I didn't look closely.
I think this allowed Russians to take over Kazakhstan's uranium again. That was where majority of Uranium One holdings were.
There's threat of monopoly of Uranium ore to be afraid of.
Linux is for people who don't mind RTFM.
Smells like somebody's trying to Swiftboat the Clintons.
The Clintons are giving the swiftboaters plenty of ammunition. This certainly has the appearance of a sleazy deal. Mostly this sort of stuff just makes the people that hate Hillary, hate her even more, while having no effect on the people that like her. But eventually all these reports are going to have an effect on swing voters.
Smells like somebody's trying to Swiftboat the Clintons. I wonder who bankrolled this, and who stands to benefit?
And I wonder what this relatively obscure business market, that's not really centered around new technology or technology that the average person could have a chance in hell of playing with, has to do with a site that focuses on nerdy or geeky things.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
"Completely" wrong? No, it is quite right to suspect her. With government officials the famous legal standard is — or ought to be — backwards: guilty until proven innocent. With the amount of sheer power and influence the Executive government has, they must be constantly under scrutiny, and any time there is a suspicion, then must be presumed guilty. These cases are all the same:
We, the people, do not — or should not — have to prove their guilt, they must be proving innocence instead. And until they do, they must be deemed guilty of the worst crime reasonably suspected. For example: could the shooting have been malicious, or the could "lost" e-mails have contained evidence of rape or treason? If yes, than the charges of murder, rape, and treason ought to stand against all involved until innocence is proven.
Nonsense. She was the most influential person on that panel and among the 10 most influential members of the government. Her approval or lack thereof was, in all likelihood, the deciding factor.
Except the foundation is a slush fund . In 2013, for example, it took in $140mln, but spent only $9 mln on actual charity:
It does not need to be a source of direct financial enrichment — it is perfectly fine as a vehicle for power.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
The thing is that the state department had to okay the deal and the Clintons... and several of their associates directly profited.
If Hillary weren't the primary Democrat hope for the next presidential election, she might already have been charged with a crime.
The State Department is trying to delay the release of her emails until AFTER the election.
It is extremely political. Hopefully the democrats can find someone less compromised to run for office so they don't feel the need to protect Hillary at all costs.
Were it not for that... again, she'd already be facing charges. But the administration is rallying behind her, the State Department is refusing to release information, the Justice Department is refusing to prosecute, and as usual congress is deadlocked with both major parties gripping the other by the throat and squeezing.
In the end, it is quite likely that hillary is going to collapse. She's a little too much like Al Gore and not enough like Slick Willy. We're already seeing the major liberal newspapers turn on her and this early in the game that is an indication that it is already over.
She's fucked. Will she spend a day in jail? Probably not. But neither will she be president. That train has sailed.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
OMG, somebody wrote a book so it must be true!
Wherever You Go, There You Are
I'm gonna have to go with a [citation needed] for most of that.
Starting with this one:
The State Department is trying to delay the release of her emails until AFTER the election.
No, they're trying to delay until January 2016, a full 10 months BEFORE the election, even before the primaries. If there's anything damaging in there, it'll be far worse for her and Democrats if there's something serious enough for her to quit the race since she's effectively the only person running. Getting the e-mails out now turns it into a non-story by then since they'll have already been released.
We're already seeing the major liberal newspapers turn on her and this early in the game that is an indication that it is already over.
That's all a ruse. Once she's received the nomination, they will all be circling the wagons around her to shield her from any scrutiny.
Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
Someone's trying to use Hillary's "What difference does it make?" defense.
The original story was that she influenced the sale in exchange for donations. Now the response from her defenders is "So what? We have plenty of uranium".
Nice attempt at changing the subject; I say "What difference does it make if there's plenty of uranium ore, the deal still looks shady"
Sure, if by "never contacted" you mean "given lots of money, along with other people on the panel, to vote a specific way".
Are you really so naive? You don't even have to dislike the clintons to understand the fundamental flow of money involved here and just how easy it is for that to have an effect on the results.
It's also stupid on the face of things to claim Clinton had no influence when donations to her charity fell drastically after she left the state dept... You don't need a tinfoil hat to pick up the subtle single there.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
If I wanted to read something about politics, I would read at the Politico. At least the nut jobs there know how to properly insult each other without pretending to have read the article.
You haven't laid out anything other than a bunch of baseless accusations. You should write a book about it, I'm sure it'll sell.
... I think they would if Hillary were a competent politician... that is someone good at politics. But she's not. She's not good at kissing babies. She's not good making people feel the love. She's not inspirational. The only reason she has any power or credibility what so ever is because of Bill Clinton and really that can only go so far. It is amazing how far she's been able to stretch that.
The media would be doing more for her if she were holding up her end of it. But she's basically a cold fish in that relationship. She just lays there not moving at all while the media TRIES to get something happening. Not terrible stimulating. She's basically been hiding for weeks hoping that all the controversy will go away. This would work if we were all babies because Peek-a-boo is highly entertaining... if you are a toddler. It loses its appeal rapidly after that age.
She's going to be a laughing stock if she isn't replaced. The former governor of Maryland is making a bid for the nomination and he's looking more credible by the day... and that's even taking into consideration that he's coming out of Maryland... which just suffered a nasty race riot.
Most of the dem strategists have admitted this and have said they're quite afraid of the ultimate consequences if she gets the nomination.
Don't get me wrong... her allies will try. But she's not giving them anything to work with.
None of this is helped by her generally unappealing personality etc.
She will still get the the base of the democrat party. Just as the republicans will always get the base of the republican party.
However, whether everyone from the base shows up is questionable and how many either side can attract from the middle is debatable.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
If Hillary actually did something illegal, skirted the law or even just compromised the US' security, the Republicans would be all over her - it would be Benghazi all over again but actually justified. They made some noise about the email servers and then pretty much dropped it.
So, I have to ask why aren't the Republicans going after her? If there is something here, she just handed them a perfect weapon to knock out the Democrats for '16. And they're not.
so, either there's nothing, or there is something much deeper and bigger happening here that us little people aren't supposed to know about - maybe our government cutting deal with Russia to prevent something worse like a war?
Make sure the discussion is about whether this is dangerous to the world uranium supply (it isn't), and not about the president/presidential candidate team that took $millions$ from one of the USs main geopolitical opponents to secure said deal.
90% of magic is making sure the audience is looking where you want them to be looking.
-Styopa
Sure, the Clintons should just slink off into anonymity and let the Bush family take over the US, because the gop is saying mean things about them
You say that as if Hillary is the only possible Democratic candidate who could beat Jeb Bush. If anything, she's got less of a chance than some other candidate with less baggage and skeletons in the closet.
It's only mid-2016 and I'm already sick of this idea that Hillary is the inevitable candidate, let alone a shoe in for victory.
Celebrity worship is a poor substitute for Deity worship and costs more to boot.
It must be a vast right wing conspiracy...
but then there's the Washington Post story.
Don't use a Democrat talking-point site to refute a claim about a Democrat.
Sometimes, getting a government official to NOT say "no" and to not voice any objections or criticisms is a very-effective way to grease-the-skids for a bad action - AND it has the happy side-effect of being less obvious to the simple-minded.
Simple question: if the EXACT same thing happened BUT the name "Hillary Clinton" were replaced with "Dick Cheney" would you still say "no big deal"?
hmmmmmmmmm