I don't think I've seen any claim that she removed herself due to a conflict of interest. I've only seen that she wasn't involved from the start as the deal was a minor matter.

A minor matter that had involved FBI investigations of the main players for massive corruption, bribery and money laundering. I really can't see how people are unable to see how completely dodgy it all is. People really believe that these people, who were under investigation for bribery and corruption, donated more than 100 MILLION dollars to the Clinton Foundation for purely charitable purposes?

Turns out that was a lie.

The Russian donations to the Clinton Foundation had nothing to do with Uranium.

The donations occurred years after the person had already divested themselves of Uranium One.

The only thing the heads on the council of nine can do is defer to the deal to the President who can choose to veto it, they cannot actually veto it themselves.

Just because "uranium" sounds scary doesn't mean you can just mine a bomb or something.

Even if they were directly mining bombs, the user gets other facts wrong such as:

• The 20% pertains to production capacity, not reserves

• The sale was not of uranium itself, but of a company that mines it

• Even if Russia owns a company that mines uranium in the US, it isn't allowed to export that uranium to Russia (or any other nation) without a separate approval process

CFIUS can only give a recommendation. The President then makes the decision. All nine members said “yes.”

In my opinion, the theory would have much more credibility if you could find $140 million donations going to the other eight members as well.

Didn’t this happen in 2010? It’s hard to argue that Clinton was the presumptive nominee 6 years out. Also, not all those Department heads were big Clinton allies in 2016.

edit: To be clear, over 90% of the "donations" was from a single person who was long-divested. The remaining donations amounted to only around $4 million.

No, he wasn't. He left UA to head Endeavor Financial which provided UA with a 100M credit facility and is deeply entrenched in the mining world & is shown as being connected to UrAsia (Giustra's original company that was merged with Uranium One) in 2005.. Just stop.

Good lord. One conspiracy spins off another. If you insist on making the assertion that Hillary was bribed to push this deal through, then you must clearly demonstrate that she was the driving force behind the approval. All available evidence indicates that she did not even represent State on CFIUS for this decision... that Jose Fernandez was the representative for State and he has confirmed this and has clearly stated that "Clinton never intervened on any CFIUS matter".

If you have clear evidence that she did intervene, then you should present it. I don't believe any such evidence exists... but I also don't believe that one of the two biggest nuclear powers in the world ever had any interest in a minor mining operation in Wyoming. An operation that posted a $10 million loss last year.

It's the Kazakh operation that is immensely more damaging to the American position. If you insist on calling this a conspiracy, could you please tell me why these Uranium One related people donated so much money to the Secretary of State's family foundation? Could you also tell me why she did not disclose these items? It's pretty fucking obvious that if you were being bribed, you'd opt for someone else at State to have the appearance of making the decision. Jose Fernandez came from Latham Watkins. He is certainly no foe of the clintons.

Explain the donations and failure to disclose and I will stop thinking they were pay to play transactions.

In what way is the Kazakh operation more damaging?

Pay for play requires two things... 1. Someone who wants something. 2. Someone who can deliver that something.

So let's start with #1. What is it that the Russians wanted?

Operational management of 1/5th of US Uranium reserves?

If that is the case, then we should be able to agree that their plot failed miserably.

This is not, as some may have you believe, as if we had a giant stockpile of uranium sitting somewhere and we simply sent 20% of it straight over to Russia. That is utter nonsense.

The purchase of Uranium One assets in the United States represented, at the time, about 20% of In-Situ Recovery (ISR) capacity based upon operating mines at the time. There is a significant difference between capacity and actual production. In addition, ISR is not the only method of uranium recovery. So the 20% figure was simply a theoretical figure based on existing permitted ISR operations at the time. Since the 2010 purchase U1 has sold off some of its U.S. assets. Back to reality, taking last year as an example, US uranium production was 1126 tons. The U1 Willow Creek operation produced 23 tons. That's about 2%. And the operation ran a $10 million deficit. Also... consider it in this context... last year global uranium production was over 62,000 tons. So the uranium pulled from Willow Creek last year amounted to about 0.037% of world uranium production. That's a helluva score for Putin.

Notice how I said reserve.

Russia does not have the economy or military to attain global superpower status. It is attempting to do so by becoming a global gatekeeper of energy and natural resource supply. Also, uranium is something tons of our enemies would love to get their hands on. Just sayin, if Russia is the big bad wolf we think she is, the deal makes no sense.

Russia's military might have regressed, but they still have slightly more nuclear warheads than the United States. If they want to provide bad guys with uranium they certainly don't need any from the United States to accomplish this.

I highly recommend you do some research regarding world uranium production. You will note that Russia has extensive uranium resources. As I have noted elsewhere in this discussion, the U.S. uranium production facility owned by Uranium One produced 23 tons of uranium last year. That represents 0.037% of world uranium production.

When you control the storage, distribution, production and supply of a natural resource, what power do you have?

I've done a ton of research.

You would have a great deal of power. I would be interested in knowing how ownership of this ISR facility fits that bill.

Tenex has supply agreements with Cameco which is the world's largest uranium production company. Tenex engaged in bribery to gain access to distribution in America. Through Uranium one and other deals, Russia gained access to Kazakhstan which I believe is the highest producing country at the moment.

It's not the URanium One deal by itself. It is troubling when taken in context with a number of moves Russia has been making to control resources markets around the world.

Now you are conflating issues...

• Cameco is a Canadian company.

• Tenex is a Rosatom subsidiary... one of about 300. One executive operating in the U.S. was taking bribes from U.S. contractors. Presumably to gain lucrative shipping contracts with Russia. In this case... the shipping was Russian uranium to the U.S. I'm not clear on how that constitutes control of distribution.

• Kazakhstan does indeed produce a majority of the world's uranium ... about 39% last year. 24,500 tons. The U1 holdings in Kazakhstan accounted for 4900 tons.

Russia's economy, about 1/10th that of the United States, is critically dependent on oil and gas prices. I think it is safe to say that Putin's focus is probably tied to controlling those resources far more that uranium.

All these things I know already.

Russia has been seeking global expansion into the Uranium market as far back as 2006. I am personally just seeking to understand if the Clinton donations from the U1 affiliated persons were intended to influence state business or were just to help the poor kids.

And Russia's interests in Kazakh mines are strictly limited to the U1 deal are they?

I think this purchase would have gone through with or without the blessing of the United States. They simply would have worked it out without the U1 holdings in the U.S. Since the purchase in 2010 Uranium One has already divested itself of at least three U.S. operations of which I am aware. We have no say in whether or not Russia purchases uranium operations in Kazakhstan or anywhere else.

Regarding the Hillary angle... do I wish she wouldn't have taken money for the Clinton Foundation while Secretary of State? Yes. And this is precisely why. You open yourself up to all sorts of innuendo. But then you have to believe that the $145 million that went to the foundation really goes into the Clinton's pockets... which is another exhausting dive into the Breitbart/InfoWars rabbit hole. Was Bill Clinton's speaking fee fishy? Not really. He gave another speech in the United Arab Emirates that year for the same amount and a speech for $525,000 in Edmonton in 2008. He earned $10.7 million for speeches he gave in 2010. Do I think the intent was to get her to somehow influence this sale? No. It defies logic, and there is zero evidence to suggest that she exercised any influence in any way.

Unfortunately, politics has become a sport. Nobody wants to give an inch any more... and they defend their "team" at all costs. When it gets right down to it, you are going to believe what you choose to believe and I will do the same. Hopefully you get to your conclusion by thinking for yourself and weighing all of the available facts instead of simply regurgitating what you get from the right wing or left wing noise machines.

My biggest issues are transparency and privacy. Transparency for the government and privacy for the people. Our government fails miserably at both. Both parties seek to hide spending and dirty deeds while increasing their abilities to stalk the ever living shit out of the citizen - fuck them. Clinton's failure to disclose foreign donations while donors had interest before state is the most damaging element to her case, in my opinion & it is not an abuse of power (as she states) to investigate the U1 deal. The whole fucking apparatus is corrupt to the core.

What happened to the price of URanium in 2011, the year after the first CFIUS decision?

You mean the year of the Fukishima nuclear disaster?

I think the part about them laundering the money through the Canadian Guistra/Bill Clinton charity is the real issue is it not?

The Russian donations to the Clinton Foundation had nothing to do with Uranium. Bill's half million dollar speaking fee, nothing to do with Uranium One. John Podesta's directorship and shares in that company, not a Russian company, had nothing to do with Uranium One.

This should be what is focused on. Don't be distracted by shills wanting to discuss the nuances of the specific terms of the deal and the relevant regulations governing them; it's not relevant.

For a bribe to be worth anything the bribee must be able use their influence favouribly. Hillarys overall influence inpushing the deal is relevant is it not?

Tenex has supply agreements with Cameco which is the world's largest uranium production company. Tenex engaged in bribery to gain access to distribution in America. Through Uranium one and other deals, Russia gained access to Kazakhstan which I believe is the highest producing country at the moment.

It's not the URanium One deal by itself. It is troubling when taken in context with a number of moves Russia has been making to control resources markets around the world.