[The following article is a collection of information from various periodical sources. The editor has carefully documented the sources and gives full credit to the original authors. The secondary source for this information is from Google.]
WHAT IS THE URANIUM ONE DEAL?
“The deal in question involves the sale of a Canadian company, Uranium One, with mining interests in the U.S. to Rosatom, Russia’s nuclear energy agency. The sale occurred in stages, beginning in 2009 when Rosatom purchased a minority stake in Uranium One, and continued in 2010 when the Russian agency took ownership of a 51 percent share of the company. In 2013 a third transaction gave Rosatom full ownership of Uranium One.
“Attorney General Jeff Sessions this week (11/14/2017) raised the possibility that a special counsel may be appointed to investigate potential wrongdoing by the Clinton Foundation, specifically suggestions that a U.S. government panel approved the sale of a large uranium firm to Russian interests in exchange for donations to the foundation.
“The so-called Uranium One deal has been a focus of conservative media and President Donald Trump….”
“Controversy surrounding the deal largely pertains to 2016 Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton, who was secretary of state in 2010 when the State Department signed off on Rosatom’s purchase of Uranium One. Several of Uranium One’s owners were also donors to the Clinton Foundation, giving $145 million to the charitable foundation, and critics have alleged that Clinton greenlighted the sale to appease donors to her family’s charity.
“Because uranium is considered an asset with national security implications, the 2010 sale to Rosatom was subject to approval by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, an intergovernmental agency that includes input from the Departments of State, Treasury, Justice, Energy, Defense, Commerce and Homeland Security, as well as the office of the U.S. Trade Representative.
“As Politifact has laid out in great detail, there is no direct evidence of a quid pro quo among Clinton, the State Department, Rosatom and the Clinton Foundation donors with ties to Uranium One. Clinton has repeatedly denied any involvement in the State Department’s approval of the Uranium One sale, insisting that such approval was granted at lower levels of the department and would not have crossed the secretary’s desk.
“Jose Fernandez, who was the assistant secretary of state for economic, energy and business affairs when the Uranium One deal was approved, told the Times that Clinton ‘never intervened with me on any [Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States] matter.'”
“Beyond the State Department, eight other government agencies approved the Uranium One sale.”
[All of the above comes from Politico, Louis Nelson’s What You Need to Know about Clinton and the Uranium Deal, 11/14/2017]
HILLARY CLINTON GAVE 20 PERCENT OF UNITED STATES’ URANIUM TO RUSSIA IN EXCHANGE FOR CLINTON FOUNDATION DONATIONS?
“Allegations of a ‘quid pro quo’ deal giving Russia ownership of one-fifth of U.S. uranium deposits in exchange for $145 million in donations to the Clinton Foundation are unsubstantiated.
“CLAIM: ‘Sec. of State Hillary Clinton’s approval of a deal to transfer control of 20% of U.S. uranium deposits to a Russian company was a quid pro quo exchange for donations to the Clinton Foundation.'”
“Among the ways these accusations stray from the facts is in attributing a power of veto or approval to Secretary Clinton that she simply did not have. Clinton was one of nine cabinet members and department heads that sit on the CFIUS, and the secretary of the treasury is it chairperson. CFIUS members are collectively charged with evaluating proposed foreign acquisitions for potential national security issues, then turning their findings over to the president. By law, the committee can’t veto a transaction; only the president can.
“Of the remaining individuals connected with Uranium One who donated to the Clinton Foundation, only one was found to have contributed during the same time frame that the deal was taking place, according to The New York Times–Ian Telfer (also a Canadian), the company’s chairman: His donations through the Fernwood Foundation included $1 million reported in 2009…. Mr. Telfer said that his donations had nothing to do with his business dealings, and that he had never discussed Uranium One with Mr. or Mrs. Clinton. He said he had given the money because he wanted to support Mr. Giustra’s [the company’s Canadian founder] charitable endeavors with Mr. Clinton.
“…none of these revelations prove that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton participate in a quid pro quo agreement to accept payment for approval of the Uranium One deal.”
[All of the above section comes from Snopes.com]
“Periodically, we hear about the so-called ‘Uranium One’ scandal, a conservative fantasy in which Hillary Clinton somehow engineered the sale of nuclear materials to Russia. Strangely, it seems to crop up every time there’s a damaging news report about President Trump’s own ties to Russia.”
“You’d want people to talk about uranium, too. NBC provided a lowdown on what Republicans say the Uranium One scandal is:
“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…As the New York Times reported in April 2015, some of the people associated wth the deal contributed millions of dollars to the Clinton Foundation. And Bill Clinton was paid $500,000 for a Moscow speech by a Russian investment bank with links to the transaction.
“What NBC doesn’t mention up top is that the story was fed to the Times from a book called Clinton Cash, which was written by a Breitbart editor and funded by a political action group tied to Steve Bannon and his billionaire benefactor, Robert Mercer. Essentially, this story is the product o
f a verifiable swamp of Trumpists. It is not real, which NBC lays out farther down.”
“This scandal is not real. It’s a distraction. You know that because, as usual, Donald Trump has made the political machinations of the Republican Party explicit. In his eagerness and his foolishness, he spelled out the plan to reporters….”
[All of the above section comes from Esquire, “What is the Uranium One ‘Scandal?’ Well…by Jack Holmes, December 21, 2017.]
“The mere prospect of Hillary Rodham Clinton running for president again is evidently provoking outrage among old adversaries–from Rush Limbaugh and Fox News to Maureen Dowd — whose appetite for bogus ‘Clinton scandals’ will never be sated. Witt he fizzling of Benghazi after an official State Department probe found no wrongdoing by the former Secretary of State, her critics have moved on, casting a gimlet eye on the charitable foundation built by her husband, the former president, over the past decade.
Although Hillary has mostly been very busy elsewhere, the foundation provides an ample target for speculation and spite–so long as critics ignore what it actually does for people around the world.
—–“But if Dowd and her Times colleagues were honestly interested in what the Clinton Foundation does with its funds, including the millions raised annually by President Clinton himself, all they would have to do is get off their asses and go look at its projects, which can be found all over the world. (Disclosure: This topic interests me so much that I recently visited Clinton Foundation projects in Africa with the former president and his daughter Chelsea.)
“‘That they never bother to do so, because reporting those stories would ruin their preferred narrative, tells us everything we need to know–not about the Clintons, of course, but about themselves.'”
[All of the above section is from author Joe Conason in HUFF - THE BLOG 08/21/2013 Updated 10/21/2013 “Why Reporters Ignore the Real Story of the Clinton Foundation.” Conason is the author of “Lies: The Right Wing Propaganda Machine and How It Distorts the Truth” and “The Hunting of the President.” Conason recently said during an MSNBC interview, “You can’t go broke going after the Clintons.”]