Category Archives: Russians

Meet the press January 8, 2017 Chuck Todd uses idiots John McCain and Lindsey Graham for argument on Russian interference in election, Sean Hannity nails McCain and Graham, Both are RINOs at best

Meet the press January 8, 2017 Chuck Todd uses idiots John McCain and Lindsey Graham for argument on Russian interference in election, Sean Hannity nails McCain and Graham, Both are RINOs at best

“I don’t believe Lindsey Graham’s a true Republican,”
“I don’t even believe he’s just a RINO,”
“I believe he’s a Democrat.”…Talk show caller, The Atlantic June 10, 2014

“Our Podesta & DNC leaks now authenticated by WikiLeaks, CIA, FBI, NSA and ODNI (aka Hillary’s “17 intel agencies”). Now that’s team work!”…Julian Assange on Twitter

“We are being lied to on a scale unimaginable by George Orwell.”…Citizen Wells

 

 

Chuck Todd, of the fake news program “Meet The Press” used idiots John McCain and Lindsey Graham to help make the argument that the Russians interfered in the 2016 presidential election.

It should have the opposite effect for any rational person who has been paying attention.

Like these folks:

Who Does America Believe? 84,000 Votes Later, Here Is The Answer

 

From Meet The Press.

“CHUCK TODD:

He’s at odds with members of his own party.

SENATOR JOHN MCCAIN:

Every American should be alarmed by Russia’s attacks on our nation.”

“SENATOR LINDSEY GRAHAM:

Yeah, I really– because he said, “It’s time to move on.” Remember when he was asked about, you know, I think maybe on New Year’s Eve? “You know, let’s just get on with our lives.” Here’s my retort to that. Our lives are built around the idea that we’re free people. That we go to the ballot box. That we, you know, have political contests outside of foreign interference.

You can’t go on with your life as a democracy when a foreign entity is trying to compromise the election process. So Mr. President-elect, it is very important that you show leadership here. Let me say this: if after having been briefed by our intelligence leaders, Donald Trump is still unsure as to what the Russians did, that would be incredibly unnerving to me because the evidence is overwhelming. All I’m asking him is to acknowledge that Russia interfered, and push back. It could be Iran next time. It could be China. It was Democrats today. It could be Republicans in the next election.”

“SENATOR JOHN MCCAIN:

I think you could only draw the conclusion if they were celebrating that they obviously wanted the outcome to be what it was. And then the question is, “What did they do to try to achieve that outcome?” And it’s pretty obvious that they were heavily engaged. And we need to come to grips with it and get to the bottom of it and overall come up with a strategy in this new form of warfare that can basically dismantle our– harm our economy, harm our elections, harm our national security.”

http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/meet-press-january-8-2017-n704481

Sean Hannity December 15, 2016.

“Hannity: “Lindsey Graham, The Idiot. What Is He Citing? Except That He Hates Trump””

“What did WikiLeaks do? OK, they exposed how corrupt America’s media is. Every big network, every major newspaper, how they colluded with the Clinton campaign. It exposed how they helped — how they cheated to beat Bernie Sanders. It exposed racism within the Democratic National Committee and sexism within the Democratic National Committee. Anti-Semitism within the Democratic National Committee They exposed all of that. It exposed just how deeply corrupt, and what a liar Hillary Clinton is, we already knew that but confirmed it was at a deeper level. I would argue with you that if this were about — and I’ll ask Julian [Assange] in the next hour, if it was about Donald Trump would he have done the same thing? Because I suspect the answer is yes.

And I’ll also tell you this: in many ways he’s the modern day Woodward and Bernstein. They’ve not been wrong — WikiLeaks has not been wrong in 10 years. A perfect track record. And Julian Assange says “no, we didn’t get it from them. We didn’t get it from any state. We didn’t get it from Russia.” So what evidence does, you know, Lindsay Graham, the idiot, what is he citing? Except that he hates Turmp. Just like McCain hates Trump. Like Kasich hates Trump. Like the Bushes hate Trump. Let’s just be honest here. The only people doing this are people that have always hated Trump and wanted to undermine and sabotage him anyway. WikiLeaks did what Woodward and Bernstein did. They exposed a level of corruption in government. That’s what they did. I’ve been saying, where is — where are the ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, where are the Woodward and Bernsteins of this age? Martha Raddatz crying on TV? For crying out loud?”

http://mediamatters.org/video/2016/12/15/sean-hannity-goes-after-idiot-lindsey-graham-refute-claims-russia-was-involved-election-hack/214833

From The Burning Platform July 23, 2015.

“McCAIN THE HERO NEARLY SUNK AN AIRCRAFT CARRIER & KILLED 134 SAILORS”

“McCain, when a Lieutenant Commander in the U.S. Navy was a Navy pilot (they call themselves aviators). July 29, 1967 while on the deck and in his plane on the carrier U.S.S. Forrestal he managed to screw up procedures (officially denied and covered up by him and the Navy and also even promoted on Wikipedia if you care to look–reason to follow). He did a smart ass punk attention getting trick by doing a “wet start” up of his jet.

When a pilot wants to be a wise ass or show off, this type of engine start creates a large startling flame and lots of surprise noise from the rear of a jet engine on start up–this was no accident. This and the large subsequent electrical surge and apparent (incorrect and against policy) weapon arming (by the pilot) caused the launching of a powerful Zuni rocket across the carrier’s deck hitting other parked planes (photo below) that were packing 1,000 high-explosive pound bombs. The subsequent massive explosions, fire and destruction went several decks below and nearly sunk this major 82,000 ton U.S. aircraft carrier.

This stunt and aftermath caused the deathof 134 sailors and seriously injure (blow off arms legs, cause blindness and burns to another 161 sailors) and took the ship off the battle line for extensive repairs. Any other Navy pilot causing this type of death and destruction the Navy would have raped him and he would probably still be in the brig. Why not McCain? Well, first with many powerful connections this “little infraction” was covered up by the Navy (our most politically involved/connected service by the way).”

Read more:

https://www.theburningplatform.com/2015/07/23/mccain-the-hero-nearly-sunk-an-aircraft-carrier-killed-134-sailors/

I personally lost all respect for John McCain in 2008, when his country needed him the most, and he handed over the election to Barack Obama.

 

More here:

https://citizenwells.com/

http://citizenwells.net/

 

More Hillary Clinton pay to play with Russians, Russia reset relations, AID Russian technology and get PAID, Coordinated by Secretary Clinton and Minister Lavrov, Hillary provided access to our technology and now accuses them of hacking???

More Hillary Clinton pay to play with Russians, Russia reset relations, AID Russian technology and get PAID, Coordinated by Secretary Clinton and Minister Lavrov, Hillary provided access to our technology and now accuses them of hacking???

“Hillary Clinton, as Secretary of State, helped the Russians improve their technology and is now complaining they are hacking her emails.”…Citizen Wells

“Most importantly, Comey said the FBI found 110 emails on Clinton’s server that were classified at the time they were sent or received. That stands in direct contradiction to Clinton’s repeated insistence she never sent or received any classified emails. And, it even stands in contrast to her amended statement that she never knowingly sent or received any classified information.”…Washington Post July 5, 2016

“We are being lied to on a scale unimaginable by George Orwell.”…Citizen Wells

 

 

More Hillary Clinton pay to play with the Russians.

More crony capitalism

AID to get PAID.

Hillary helped the Russians with their technology and now complains that they are hacking her.

What???

From the Government Accountability Institute.

“FROM RUSSIA WITH MONEY

Hillary Clinton, the Russian Reset, and Cronyism”

Executive Summary

• A major technology transfer component of the Russian reset overseen by Hillary Clinton substantially enhanced the Russian military’s technological capabilities, according to both the FBI and the U.S. Army.

• Russian government officials and American corporations participated in the technology transfer project overseen by Hillary Clinton’s State Department that funnelled tens of millions of dollars to the Clinton Foundation.

• A Putin-connected Russian government fund transferred $35 million to a small company with Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman John Podesta on its executive board, which included senior Russian officials.

• John Podesta failed to reveal, as required by law on his federal financial disclosures, his membership on the board of this offshore company.

• Podesta also headed up a think tank which wrote favorably about the Russian reset while apparently receiving millions from Kremlin-linked Russian oligarchs via an offshore LLC.

Introduction

During her tenure as Secretary of State, one of Hillary Clinton’s major policy initiatives was the “reset” in relations with Russia. The idea was to begin the U.S.-Russia relationship anew, unburdened by recent Russian government actions or Bush Administration policies that had caused tensions between Moscow and Washington. The reset was one of President Obama’s “earliest new foreign policy initiatives,” according to the White House, and was based on the belief that relations with Russia had become unnecessarily mired in conflict over a handful of issues during the Bush Administration. In short, the Obama Administration wanted what it called “win-win outcomes.”1

As America’s chief diplomat, Secretary Clinton was the point person on the reset, handling a range of issues from arms control to technological cooperation.

Those matters she did not handle herself were managed by close aides under her direction. On July 6, 2009, President Barack Obama visited Moscow, and together with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, announced the creation of the U.S.-Russia Bilateral Presidential Commission. The Bilateral Commission would be the heart and soul of the Russia reset, with the goal to “improve communication and cooperation between the governments of Russia and the United States.” 2

In addition, the Commission would work at “identifying areas of cooperation and pursuing joint projects and actions that strengthen strategic stability, international security, economic well-being, and the development of ties between the Russian and American people….” 3 Specifically, as it related to technology transfer and investment, the Commission played a key role in everything from intellectual property sharing to export licensing to facilitating American investment in Russia and Russian investment in America.4

President Obama and Medvedev announced that the work of the Commission would be directed by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and her counterpart, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov. As President Obama put it, the effort would “be coordinated by Secretary Clinton and Minister Lavrov, and Secretary Clinton [would] travel to Russia [that] fall to carry [that] effort forward.” 5″

“According to leaked U.S. government cables, U.S. State Department officials beginning in 2009 played a substantial role in assisting Russian government entities in accessing U.S. capital and in seeking investments in U.S. high technology companies. Specifically, they worked to support the efforts of the Russian State Investment Fund, Rusnano, to seek investment opportunities in the United States by arranging meetings with U.S. tech firms. They also crafted and delivered joint statements with Russian officials on cooperation on technological matters.9”

The Reset Begins

“Hillary Clinton and the Obama Administration saw the opportunity for widespread technological cooperation between the U.S. and Russia. During her October 2009 visit to Russia, she noted the country’s strength in STEM (science, technology, engineering, mathematics): “[I]t’s just a treasure trove of potential for the Russian economy.”20 Vice President Joe Biden echoed that sentiment two years later during his visit to Russia: “Closer cooperation will allow American companies to benefit from greater access to Russia’s deep pool of talented engineers, mathematicians and computer scientists.”21 According to leaked State Department cables, Russian government officials were told that the Obama Administration saw “building the science and technology (S & T) relationship with Russia as an important pillar in strengthening overall bilateral relations….”22

Technological cooperation and investment deals seemed to be the sort of “win-win” deals President Obama said he sought. But as we will see, the Clintons and close aides appear to have personally benefitted from such deals. And these deals also raised serious questions from the FBI, the U.S. Army, and foreign governments that the Russian military was benefitting from them as well. ”

Skolkovo

A major part of this technological cooperation included Russian plans to create its own version of Silicon Valley.23 The research facility, on the outskirts Moscow, was dubbed “Skolkovo” and would be developed with the cooperation and investment of major U.S. tech firms.24 In 2010, Cisco pledged a cool $1 billion to Skolkovo, and Google and Intel also jumped on board.25 (All three happened to be major Clinton Foundation supporters as well—as we will see, a significant factor for dozens of companies who became involved with Skolkovo.) The idea was simple: match Russian brainpower with U.S. investment dollars and entrepreneurial know-how to spark technological breakthroughs in a wide variety of areas including energy, communications, sensors, and propulsion systems. Unlike the freewheeling, decentralized, and entrepreneurial culture in California, Skolkovo would have a distinctly different culture. It would be more centralized, and dominated by Russian government officials.26″

“The State Department played an active role early on by setting up meetings for Russian officials with U.S. technology companies. According to Hillary Clinton, she inspired then-Russian President Dimitry Medvedev to visit Silicon Valley to encourage participation in Skolkovo. As she reported in her memoirs, “At a long meeting I had with Medvedev outside Moscow in October 2009, he raised his plan to build a high-tech corridor in Russia modelled after our own Silicon Valley. When I suggested that he visit the original in California, he turned to his staff and told them to follow up.”31”

“The State Department actively and aggressively encouraged American firms to participate in Skolkovo. Indeed, many of the Memorandums of Understanding (MOUs) signed by U.S. companies to invest and cooperate in Skolkovo were signed under the auspices of Hillary Clinton’s State Department.40”

Money to the Clintons

“Many of the key figures in the Skolkovo process — on both the Russian and U.S. sides — had major financial ties to the Clintons. During the Russian reset, these figures and entities provided the Clintons with tens of millions of dollars, including contributions to the Clinton Foundation, paid for speeches by Bill Clinton, or investments in small start-up companies with deep Clinton ties.

In 2012 Skolkovo released its first annual report which identified the “key partner service”. Key Partners are entities who have made substantial commitments to develop the Skolkovo research facility.49 Conor Lenihan, vicepresident of the Skolkovo Foundation, who had previously partnered with the Clinton Foundation, released a PowerPoint presentation that included a list of 28 Russian, American, and European Key Partners.50 Of those 28, 17 of them, or 60 percent, have made financial commitments to the Clinton Foundation or sponsored speeches by Bill. The Clinton Foundation only discloses donations in ranges, so it is impossible to determine the precise amount of money the Skolkovo benefactors gave to the Clinton Foundation, but based on those disclosures, the money ranges from $6.5 to $23.5 million. However, keep in mind that the Clinton Foundation has admitted that it has failed to release the names of all of its contributors, so the amount could be substantially higher.”

“Another Russian figure deeply involved with Skolkovo who had financial ties to the Clintons is Andrey Vavilov. The former Russian government official is the Chairman of SuperOx, which is part of the Nuclear Cluster at Skolkovo.65 The Nuclear Cluster at Skolkovo is committed to enhancing the nuclear capabilities of the Russian state. A major listed beneficiary of this research is Rosatom, the Russian State Nuclear Agency, which manages the country’s nuclear arsenal.66 Vavilov has donated between $10,000 and $25,000 to the Clinton Foundation.67 Rosatom, through its subsidiary ARMZ, purchased a Canadian uranium company called Uranium One in 2010 which held assets in the United States and therefore required State Department approval. Nine Uranium One shareholders donated more than $145 million to the Clinton Foundation. Some of those donations, including those by Uranium One Chairman Ian Telfer, had not been disclosed by the Clinton Foundation.68”

National Security Implications

“The serious questions raised by Hillary Clinton’s pushing of technology transfer and investments as part of the Russian reset don’t end with the issues of self-dealing and cronyism. There are serious national security questions that have been raised about both Skolkovo and Rusnano, by the FBI, the U.S. Army, and cybersecurity experts. Specifically, these experts have argued that the activities of Skolkovo and Russian investment funds like Rusnano are ultimately serving the interests of the Russian military.”

“Cybersecurity experts also expressed deep reservations as early as 2010 that U.S. companies working at Skolkovo “may…inadvertently be harming global cybersecurity.”163 And indeed, Skolkovo happens to be the site of the Russian Security Service (FSB)’s security centers 16 and 18, which are in charge of information warfare for the Russian government. According to Newsweek, it is here that the Russian government runs information warfare operations against the Ukrainian government. As Vitaliy Naida, head of the Internal Security (SBU) department for the Ukrainian government told Newsweek, “It starts with the FSB’s security centres 16 and 18, operating out of Skolkovo, Russia. These centres are in charge of information warfare. They send out propaganda, false information via social media. Re-captioned images from Syria, war crimes from Serbia—they’re used to radicalize and then recruit Ukrainians.”164”

Read more:

http://www.g-a-i.org/u/2016/08/Report-Skolkvovo-08012016.pdf

 

 

Russia controls 20 percent of US uranium with Clinton State Department approval, Hillary “I was not personally involved because that’s not something (the) secretary of state did”, Over 90% of uranium used here comes from Russia and other countries, NH Hampshire interview

Russia controls 20 percent of US uranium with Clinton State Department approval, Hillary “I was not personally involved because that’s not something (the) secretary of state did”, Over 90% of uranium used here comes from Russia and other countries, NH Hampshire interview

“Grave incompetence or brazen dishonesty?

Those are the only two conclusions one can reasonably come to after reviewing Hillary Clinton’s stunning Sunday interview on local New Hampshire TV.”…NY Post June 22, 2015

“For her to claim that somehow she was not involved in this decision strikes me as extremely odd,”
“If, in fact, she was not involved in this decision, it goes to the heart of leadership because the secretary of state should be the one to sign off on transferring 20 percent of U.S. uranium to the Russian government.”…Peter Schweizer, author “Clinton Cash”

“Allowing Russia to control 20 percent of US uranium.
Benghazi.
Careless treatment of classified emails.
Hillary Clinton is a clear and present danger to the US.”…Citizen Wells

 

Reported yesterday at Citizen Wells:

URANIUM FACTS

From the US Energy Information Administration July 11, 2011.

“Over 90% of uranium purchased by U.S. commercial nuclear reactors is from outside the U.S.”

“Owners and operators of U.S. commercial nuclear power reactors purchased nearly 47 million pounds of uranium from U.S. and foreign suppliers during 2010; 92% of this total was of foreign origin.

Historically, U.S. owners and operators have purchased the majority of their uranium from foreign sources. Russia, Canada, Australia, Kazakhstan, and Namibia represent the top five countries of origin for U.S. uranium, and together account for 85% of total U.S. uranium purchases in 2010. Owners and operators of U.S. commercial nuclear power plants purchased uranium from a total of 14 different countries in 2010.”

Read more:

http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=2150

From the US Energy Information Administration June 1, 2016.

“U.S. uranium production is near historic low as imports continue to fuel U.S. reactors”

“Most of the uranium loaded into U.S. nuclear power reactors is imported. During 2015, owners and operators of U.S. nuclear power reactors purchased 57 million pounds of uranium. Nearly half of these purchases originated from two countries, Canada and Kazakhstan, providing 17 million pounds and 11 million pounds of uranium, respectively.

U.S. uranium concentrate production, which started in 1949 and peaked in 1980, has recently been near historic lows. Uranium production was 0.63 million pounds of uranium (U3O8) in the first quarter 2016. At that rate, total 2016 production may be about 2.5 million pounds, only slightly higher than the low of 2.0 million pounds produced in 2003.”

Read more:

http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=26472

From the NY Times April 23, 2015.

“The headline on the website Pravda trumpeted President Vladimir V. Putin’s latest coup, its nationalistic fervor recalling an era when its precursor served as the official mouthpiece of the Kremlin: “Russian Nuclear Energy Conquers the World.”

The article, in January 2013, detailed how the Russian atomic energy agency, Rosatom, had taken over a Canadian company with uranium-mining stakes stretching from Central Asia to the American West. The deal made Rosatom one of the world’s largest uranium producers and brought Mr. Putin closer to his goal of controlling much of the global uranium supply chain.

But the untold story behind that story is one that involves not just the Russian president, but also a former American president and a woman who would like to be the next one.

At the heart of the tale are several men, leaders of the Canadian mining industry, who have been major donors to the charitable endeavors of former President Bill Clinton and his family. Members of that group built, financed and eventually sold off to the Russians a company that would become known as Uranium One.

Beyond mines in Kazakhstan that are among the most lucrative in the world, the sale gave the Russians control of one-fifth of all uranium production capacity in the United States. Since uranium is considered a strategic asset, with implications for national security, the deal had to be approved by a committee composed of representatives from a number of United States government agencies. Among the agencies that eventually signed off was the State Department, then headed by Mr. Clinton’s wife,Hillary Rodham Clinton.

As the Russians gradually assumed control of Uranium One in three separate transactions from 2009 to 2013, Canadian records show, a flow of cash made its way to the Clinton Foundation. Uranium One’s chairman used his family foundation to make four donations totaling $2.35 million. Those contributions were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons, despite an agreement Mrs. Clinton had struck with the Obama White House to publicly identify all donors. Other people with ties to the company made donations as well.

And shortly after the Russians announced their intention to acquire a majority stake in Uranium One, Mr. Clinton received $500,000 for a Moscow speech from a Russian investment bank with links to the Kremlin that was promoting Uranium One stock.”
“The Power to Say No

When a company controlled by the Chinese government sought a 51 percent stake in a tiny Nevada gold mining operation in 2009, it set off a secretive review process in Washington, where officials raised concerns primarily about the mine’s proximity to a military installation, but also about the potential for minerals at the site, including uranium, to come under Chinese control. The officials killed the deal.

Such is the power of the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States. The committee comprises some of the most powerful members of the cabinet, including the attorney general, the secretaries of the Treasury, Defense, Homeland Security, Commerce and Energy, and the secretary of state. They are charged with reviewing any deal that could result in foreign control of an American business or asset deemed important to national security.

The national security issue at stake in the Uranium One deal was not primarily about nuclear weapons proliferation; the United States and Russia had for years cooperated on that front, with Russia sending enriched fuel from decommissioned warheads to be used in American nuclear power plants in return for raw uranium.

Instead, it concerned American dependence on foreign uranium sources. While the United States gets one-fifth of its electrical power from nuclear plants, it produces only around 20 percent of the uranium it needs, and most plants have only 18 to 36 months of reserves, according to Marin Katusa, author of “The Colder War: How the Global Energy Trade Slipped From America’s Grasp.”

“The Russians are easily winning the uranium war, and nobody’s talking about it,” said Mr. Katusa, who explores the implications of the Uranium One deal in his book. “It’s not just a domestic issue but a foreign policy issue, too.”

When ARMZ, an arm of Rosatom, took its first 17 percent stake in Uranium One in 2009, the two parties signed an agreement, found in securities filings, to seek the foreign investment committee’s review. But it was the 2010 deal, giving the Russians a controlling 51 percent stake, that set off alarm bells. Four members of the House of Representatives signed a letter expressing concern. Two more began pushing legislation to kill the deal.

Senator John Barrasso, a Republican from Wyoming, where Uranium One’s largest American operation was, wrote to President Obama, saying the deal “would give the Russian government control over a sizable portion of America’s uranium production capacity.”
“Still, the ultimate authority to approve or reject the Russian acquisition rested with the cabinet officials on the foreign investment committee, including Mrs. Clinton — whose husband was collecting millions in donations from people associated with Uranium One.”

Read more:

From WMUR in New Hampshire June 23, 2015.

“Hillary Clinton facing questions over involvement in Uranium One sale”

“The question posed to Clinton during the interview with News 9 Political Director Josh McElveen focused on big money paid in the form of a $500,000 speaking fee to her husband, former President Bill Clinton, by a Kremlin bank, one of the players involved in the Uranium One deal.

Her answer is sparking major questions about her honesty and leadership.

“There’s no basis for any of that. The timing doesn’t work. It happened in terms of the work for the foundation before I was secretary of state,” Clinton said in the interview. “There were nine government agencies that that had to sign off on that deal. I was not personally involved because that’s not something (the) secretary of state did.”

“The question itself was born of allegations made by the conservative author of the best-selling but highly critical book, “Clinton Cash,” and on Tuesday, author Peter Schweizer blasted Clinton’s answers on CloseUP in an op-ed that has gone national, insisting his timelines are correct, and that at the time of the sale of Uranium One, Clinton was negotiating directly with the Russian government over civilian nuclear technology in the so-called Russian reset.

“For her to claim that somehow she was not involved in this decision strikes me as extremely odd,” said Schweizer. “If, in fact, she was not involved in this decision, it goes to the heart of leadership because the secretary of state should be the one to sign off on transferring 20 percent of U.S. uranium to the Russian government.””

Read more:

http://www.wmur.com/politics/hillary-clinton-facing-questions-over-involvement-in-uranium-one-sale/33737328

 

More here:

https://citizenwells.com/

 

Hillary Clinton role in Russian uranium deal, Incompetence pay to play blackmail or all of the above, Over 90% of uranium purchased by US commercial nuclear reactors from outside America, Why did Hillary not stop sale to Russia?

Hillary Clinton role in Russian uranium deal, Incompetence pay to play blackmail or all of the above, Over 90% of uranium purchased by US commercial nuclear reactors from outside America, Why did Hillary not stop sale to Russia?

“Clinton Foundation quid-pro-quo worries are lingering, will be exploited in general”…DNC email, April 24, 2016 from Wikileaks

“Now, after Russia’s annexation of Crimea and aggression in Ukraine, the Moscow-Washington relationship is devolving toward Cold War levels, a point several experts made in evaluating a deal so beneficial to Mr. Putin, a man known to use energy resources to project power around the world.

“Should we be concerned? Absolutely,” said Michael McFaul, who served under Mrs. Clinton as the American ambassador to Russia but said he had been unaware of the Uranium One deal until asked about it. “Do we want Putin to have a monopoly on this? Of course we don’t. We don’t want to be dependent on Putin for anything in this climate.””…NY Times April 23, 2015

“While it is not clear precisely when Secretary Clinton decided to permanently delete all emails from her server, it appears she made the decision after October 28, 2014, when the Department of State for the first time asked the Secretary to return her public record to the Department,”… Rep. Trey Gowdy

 

URANIUM FACTS

From the US Energy Information Administration July 11, 2011.

“Over 90% of uranium purchased by U.S. commercial nuclear reactors is from outside the U.S.”

“Owners and operators of U.S. commercial nuclear power reactors purchased nearly 47 million pounds of uranium from U.S. and foreign suppliers during 2010; 92% of this total was of foreign origin.

Historically, U.S. owners and operators have purchased the majority of their uranium from foreign sources. Russia, Canada, Australia, Kazakhstan, and Namibia represent the top five countries of origin for U.S. uranium, and together account for 85% of total U.S. uranium purchases in 2010. Owners and operators of U.S. commercial nuclear power plants purchased uranium from a total of 14 different countries in 2010.”

Read more:

http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=2150

From the US Energy Information Administration June 1, 2016.

“U.S. uranium production is near historic low as imports continue to fuel U.S. reactors”

“Most of the uranium loaded into U.S. nuclear power reactors is imported. During 2015, owners and operators of U.S. nuclear power reactors purchased 57 million pounds of uranium. Nearly half of these purchases originated from two countries, Canada and Kazakhstan, providing 17 million pounds and 11 million pounds of uranium, respectively.

U.S. uranium concentrate production, which started in 1949 and peaked in 1980, has recently been near historic lows. Uranium production was 0.63 million pounds of uranium (U3O8) in the first quarter 2016. At that rate, total 2016 production may be about 2.5 million pounds, only slightly higher than the low of 2.0 million pounds produced in 2003.”

Read more:

http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=26472

So, why would Hillary Clinton, as Secretary of State, allow the sale of Uranium One and control of 20 percent of US uranium to the Russians?

Was it:

Incompetence?

Pay to Play involving the Clinton Foundation?

Blackmail by the Russians?

or

All of the above?

From Breitbart July 25, 2016.

“The Democrats’ newfound paranoia about Russian influence on American affairs was certainly nowhere to be found when Hillary Clinton was cheerfully selling them a huge chunk of America’s uranium stockpile, right after a Russian bank paid Bill Clinton $500,000 for a speech.

The Uranium One story is among the incidents detailed in Peter Schweizer’s Clinton Cash. A quick recap: Uranium One was originally a Canadian company, bought out by Russia’s state atomic energy agency, Rosatom.

Uranium One’s big shots were very, very generous donors to the Clinton Foundation, the “charity” through which so much foreign money flowed to Bill and Hillary Clinton. The New York Times reported in April 2015 about how those donations spiked as the deal for Rosatom to secure Uranium One and its holdings in the United States was brought to a successful conclusion, along with one of Bill Clinton’s biggest paydays ever:

As the Russians gradually assumed control of Uranium One in three separate transactions from 2009 to 2013, Canadian records show, a flow of cash made its way to the Clinton Foundation. Uranium One’s chairman used his family foundation to make four donations totaling $2.35 million. Those contributions were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons, despite an agreement Mrs. Clinton had struck with the Obama White House to publicly identify all donors. Other people with ties to the company made donations as well.

And shortly after the Russians announced their intention to acquire a majority stake in Uranium One, Mr. Clinton received $500,000 for a Moscow speech from a Russian investment bank with links to the Kremlin that was promoting Uranium One stock.”

Read more:

http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/07/25/flashback-clintons-loved-russia-enough-sell-uranium/

Was it incompetence?

FBI Director James Comey:

“Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.”

Whether or not the Russians hacked Hillary’s emails, it is now apparent that they have had access to her classified exchanges while Secretary of State.

Blackmail is a distinct possibility!

Did Hillary delete emails related to the Russian uranium deal?

From Politico July 6, 2016.

“The Strange Gaps in Hillary Clinton’s Email Traffic

An analysis of the released emails raises questions about whether Clinton deleted a number of work-related emails—and if she did, why.”

“But then there is an instance where the State Department cable traffic rises and there are few if any Clinton corresponding emails. It’s the case of Rosatom, the Russian State Nuclear Agency: Clinton and senior officials at the State Department received dozens of cables on the subject of Rosatom’s activities around the world, including a hair-raising cable about Russian efforts to dominate the uranium market. As secretary of state, Clinton was a central player in a variety of diplomatic initiatives involving Rosatom officials. But strangely, there is only one email that mentions Rosatom in Clinton’s entire collection, an innocuous email about Rosatom’s activities in Ecuador. To put that into perspective, there are more mentions of LeBron James, yoga and NBC’s Saturday Night Live than the Russian Nuclear Agency in Clinton’s emails deemed “official.”
What could explain this lack of emails on the Russian Nuclear Agency? Were Clinton’s aides negligent in passing along unimportant information while ignoring the far more troubling matters concerning Rosatom? Possibly. Or, were emails on this subject deleted as falling into the “personal” category? It is certainly odd that there’s virtually no email traffic on this subject in particular. Remember that a major deal involving Rosatom that was of vital concern to Clinton Foundation donors went down in 2009 and 2010. Rosatom bought a small Canadian uranium company owned by nine investors who were or became major Clinton Foundation donors, sending $145 million in contributions. The Rosatom deal required approval from several departments, including the State Department.”

Read more:

From the NY Times April 23, 2015.

 

“The national security issue at stake in the Uranium One deal was not primarily about nuclear weapons proliferation; the United States and Russia had for years cooperated on that front, with Russia sending enriched fuel from decommissioned warheads to be used in American nuclear power plants in return for raw uranium.

Instead, it concerned American dependence on foreign uranium sources. While the United States gets one-fifth of its electrical power from nuclear plants, it produces only around 20 percent of the uranium it needs, and most plants have only 18 to 36 months of reserves, according to Marin Katusa, author of “The Colder War: How the Global Energy Trade Slipped From America’s Grasp.”

“The Russians are easily winning the uranium war, and nobody’s talking about it,” said Mr. Katusa, who explores the implications of the Uranium One deal in his book. “It’s not just a domestic issue but a foreign policy issue, too.”

When ARMZ, an arm of Rosatom, took its first 17 percent stake in Uranium One in 2009, the two parties signed an agreement, found in securities filings, to seek the foreign investment committee’s review. But it was the 2010 deal, giving the Russians a controlling 51 percent stake, that set off alarm bells. Four members of the House of Representatives signed a letter expressing concern. Two more began pushing legislation to kill the deal.

Senator John Barrasso, a Republican from Wyoming, where Uranium One’s largest American operation was, wrote to President Obama, saying the deal “would give the Russian government control over a sizable portion of America’s uranium production capacity.”

“Equally alarming,” Mr. Barrasso added, “this sale gives ARMZ a significant stake in uranium mines in Kazakhstan.”

Uranium One’s shareholders were also alarmed, and were “afraid of Rosatom as a Russian state giant,” Sergei Novikov, a company spokesman, recalled in an interview. He said Rosatom’s chief, Mr. Kiriyenko, sought to reassure Uranium One investors, promising that Rosatom would not break up the company and would keep the same management, including Mr. Telfer, the chairman. Another Rosatom official said publicly that it did not intend to increase its investment beyond 51 percent, and that it envisioned keeping Uranium One a public company.”

“That renewed adversarial relationship has raised concerns about European dependency on Russian energy resources, including nuclear fuel. The unease reaches beyond diplomatic circles. In Wyoming, where Uranium One equipment is scattered across his 35,000-acre ranch, John Christensen is frustrated that repeated changes in corporate ownership over the years led to French, South African, Canadian and, finally, Russian control over mining rights on his property.

“I hate to see a foreign government own mining rights here in the United States,” he said. “I don’t think that should happen.”

Mr. Christensen, 65, noted that despite assurances by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission that uranium could not leave the country without Uranium One or ARMZ obtaining an export license — which they do not have — yellowcake from his property was routinely packed into drums and trucked off to a processing plant in Canada.

Asked about that, the commission confirmed that Uranium One has, in fact, shipped yellowcake to Canada even though it does not have an export license. Instead, the transport company doing the shipping, RSB Logistic Services, has the license. A commission spokesman said that “to the best of our knowledge” most of the uranium sent to Canada for processing was returned for use in the United States. A Uranium One spokeswoman, Donna Wichers, said 25 percent had gone to Western Europe and Japan. At the moment, with the uranium market in a downturn, nothing is being shipped from the Wyoming mines.

The “no export” assurance given at the time of the Rosatom deal is not the only one that turned out to be less than it seemed. Despite pledges to the contrary, Uranium One was delisted from the Toronto Stock Exchange and taken private. As of 2013, Rosatom’s subsidiary, ARMZ, owned 100 percent of it.”

Read more:

Incompetence?

Pay to Play involving the Clinton Foundation?

Blackmail by the Russians?

or

All of the above?

YOU DECIDE.

 

More here:

https://citizenwells.com/

 

 

 

Alexander Litvinenko 2006 poisoning final arguments UK inquiry, Putin KGB state, Polonium-210 rare radioactive isotope used, Outing of former Russian intelligence officer

Alexander Litvinenko 2006 poisoning final arguments UK inquiry, Putin KGB state, Polonium-210 rare radioactive isotope used, Outing of former Russian intelligence officer

 

“Why was Vladimir Putin not seen in public for 10 days”…Citizen Wells

“The U.K. inquiry into the 2006 poisoning of former Russian intelligence officer Alexander Litvinenko begins final arguments on Monday. Most of the evidence produced in the hearings was known years ago. But seeing it meticulously laid out again now, after Russia’s semi-covert war in Ukraine and the assassination of opposition leader Boris Nemtsov, it’s impossible not to notice a chilling pattern.”…Bloomberg View March 15, 2015

“Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.”…George Orwell, “1984″

 

 

From Bloomberg View March 15, 2015.

“Guns, Poison and Putin’s KGB State”

“The U.K. inquiry into the 2006 poisoning of former Russian intelligence officer Alexander Litvinenko begins final arguments on Monday. Most of the evidence produced in the hearings was known years ago. But seeing it meticulously laid out again now, after Russia’s semi-covert war in Ukraine and the assassination of opposition leader Boris Nemtsov, it’s impossible not to notice a chilling pattern.

Litvinenko was poisoned with polonium-210, a rare radioactive isotope. For years the U.K. sought the extradition of two Russian men — Andrei Lugovoi and Dmitry Kovtun — who met Litvinenko for tea on the day he was poisoned. And for years Russia has refused.

Indeed, last Sunday — a day before the inquiry was to examine Lugovoi’s single interview with British police in Moscow — President Vladimir Putin awarded him a medal “for services to the fatherland” in Russia’s parliament, where he is now a legislator. As an MP, Lugovoi — a former KGB agent, Kremlin bodyguard and protection service entrepreneur — enjoys immunity from prosecution.

The way that Russia has aided Lugovoi to deny, muddy and discredit the array of evidence that British authorities believe ties him to the murder echoes its more recent obfuscations — from its denial of any involvement in the war in Ukraine (despite the evident presence of its tanks, anti-aircraft systems and troops), to its multiple baseless theories to obscure evidence that a Russian anti-aircraft system shot down Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17 over eastern Ukraine last year.”

“The reckless character of this exotic killing in a major foreign capital also feels familiar. Like Nemtsov’s shooting in the closely watched area outside the Kremlin, it shocked with its boldness. So did last year’s annexation of Crimea by Russia’s “little green men,” and Russia’s aggressive buzzing of NATO airspace since the Ukraine crisis began.

Equally striking is the predominance of former and current intelligence officers in the cast of characters involved in the Litvinenko inquiry — right up to Putin, whom Litvinenko accused from his death bed (and himself has been missing for days among rumors of a power struggle among security services). The picture that emerges is of a KGB state run by and for the intelligence services and their allies.”

Read more:

http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-03-15/litvinenko-hearings-put-putin-s-kgb-state-on-display

 

 

Putin deposed in Russian coup?, Israeli former ambassador to Russia signs of coup, Stroke health issues dead?, Security chief general Viktor Zolotov killed?, Putin not seen in public in 10 days

Putin deposed in Russian coup?, Israeli former ambassador to Russia signs of coup, Stroke health issues dead?, Security chief general Viktor Zolotov killed?, Putin not seen in public in 10 days

 

 

From Haaretz March 15, 2015.

“Israel’s former ambassador to Russia: ‘There are signs of a coup’

Zvi Magen believes army factions or wealthy businessmen could be behind President Vladimir Putin’s disappearance.”

“Russian President Vladimir Putin was last seen in public on March 5, and in Russia there are increased fears he is the victim of an attempted coup by security organizations and the Russian army.

Israel’s former ambassador to Russia, Zvi Magen, told Haaretz he believes “there are many signs of a coup. The movement of the army around the Kremlin indicates that there is a change in government, or that an attempt at a change in government is being carried out.”

Magen believes those responsible for the potential coup are “branches or factions in the army who are working together or against one another, or wealthy businessmen, many of whom worked in these organizations. They could only be people who are free to walk around the corridors of the Kremlin.”

He says possible reasons include the ongoing sanctions imposed by the West on those close to the Kremlin, sanctions “that harm them personally. I don’t believe there’s a controversy there surrounding policy. They’re protecting their own interests.””

Read more:

http://www.haaretz.com/news/world/.premium-1.647001

From the Russian Monitor March 11, 2015.

(translated into English)

“Putin stroke?”

“Mail “Russian Monitor” received a letter signed by an anonymous employee of the Central Clinical Hospital of President Administration (CDB) in Moscow, in which he reported that the staff of this elite Moscow hospital to which “attributed to” the top management of the Russian Federation, circulate rumors that Vladimir Putin a few days ago was diagnosed with ischemic stroke. The source said that directly to the CDB President not hospitalized.”

http://rusmonitor.com/u-putina-insult.html

From Radio Free Europe March 15, 2015.

“News Analysis: Three Scenarios For A Succession In Russia”

“For a decade and a half, Vladimir Putin has sat at the top of a closed, hierarchical, and personality-based political system that allows for no competition.

As a result, opinion polls in Russia routinely show the public sees “no alternative” to Putin’s leadership.

So what would happen in Russia if Putin suddenly and without warning left the political stage? Over the last few days, we have seen the anxiety that even the rumor of such an event can produce in Russia and around the world. If Putin is the guarantor of stability in Russia, then does a scenario without Putin automatically imply instability — even violent instability?”

“The Constitutional Scenario”

“So if Putin unexpectedly left the scene and the constitution were followed to the letter, Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev would return to the Kremlin and a competitive election would take place in three months.”

“The Consensus Scenario

Of course, such a smooth and legal transition of power is unlikely in Russia.

In Soviet times, political heavyweights wrestled behind the scenes until a successor emerged through some unfathomable communist alchemy.

More recently, when President Boris Yeltsin decided to retire, political insiders reached a consensus and produced the unimaginable candidacy of Vladimir Putin as his successor. They then used a combination of their financial, administrative, and media resources to get him elected.”

“The Conflict Scenario

But what if consensus can’t be reached?

Under Putin, the political system has become more personalized and centered around the president himself, who has balanced conflicting parties. And he has almost certainly stifled all discussion of what could or should happen in a post-Putin era.

But the divisions in Putin’s inner circle, always latent, have become more manifest with the Ukraine crisis and have intensified since the February 27 assassination of opposition figure Boris Nemtsov.

“Now the conflict between the clans has become very seriously intense,” says journalist and analyst Raf Shakirov. “It is obvious that different groups are pushing for different paths.”

The main fault line, he says, is between “hawks” who have become ascendant due to the Ukraine crisis and Russia’s showdown with the West and a “liberal group” responsible for the economy who would prefer a thaw at home and a rapprochement abroad.”

Read more:

http://www.rferl.org/content/russia-succession-scenarios/26899859.html

No proof Bashar Assad approved chemical attacks in Syria, US intelligence can’t prove Assad directly ordered, Rogue generals and rebels may control

No proof Bashar Assad approved chemical attacks in Syria, US intelligence can’t prove Assad directly ordered, Rogue generals and rebels may control

“I do not believe John Kerry is fit to be commander in chief of the armed forces of the United States. This is not a political issue. It is a matter of his judgement, truthfulness, reliability, loyalty, and trust–all absolute tenets of command.”…REAR ADMIRAL ROY F. HOFFMAN, USN (RETIRED)

“Testimony from victims strongly suggests it was the rebels, not the Syrian government, that used Sarin nerve gas during a recent incident in the revolution-wracked nation, a senior U.N. diplomat said Monday.

Carla del Ponte, a member of the U.N. Independent International Commission of Inquiry on Syria, told Swiss TV there were “strong, concrete suspicions but not yet incontrovertible proof,” that rebels seeking to oust Syrian strongman Bashar al-Assad had used the nerve agent.

But she said her panel had not yet seen any evidence of Syrian government forces using chemical weapons, according to the BBC, but she added that more investigation was needed.”…Washington Times, May 6, 2013

 
“I didn’t like Obama from the beginning, I thought he was a hustler and I think he still is.”…Bartle Bull, long time Democrat and civil rights attorney

Barack Obama and John Kerry have been pushing for an attack on Syria with no proof that the Assad Regime was behind the chemical attacks.

There is compelling evidence that the rebels have used chemical weapons.

Now we are negotiating with Bashar Assad to remove chemical weapons when in fact he may not control them and after any alleged chemical weapons are removed, they may remain in the hands of rogue generals and rebels.

From the Washington Times September 11, 2013.

“U.S. can’t prove Bashar Assad approved chemical attacks in Syria
Control of deadly weapons in question”

“U.S. intelligence has yet to uncover evidence that Syrian President Bashar Assad directly ordered the chemical attacks last month on civilians in a suburb of Damascus, though the consensus inside U.S. agencies and Congress is that members of Mr. Assad’s inner circle likely gave the command, officials tell The Washington Times.

The gap in the intelligence has raised debate in some corners of the wider intelligence community about whether Mr. Assad has full control of his war-weary Army and their arsenal of chemical missiles, which most likely would be treasured by terrorist groups known to be operating in Syria, said officials, who spoke only on the condition of anonymity because they were discussing intelligence matters.

“If there was a rogue general that did it on his own accord, that would be a bigger problem for Assad, because that would imply that he does not have control of his own weapons,” said one senior congressional source familiar with U.S. intelligence assessments on Syria.

Apart from concerns about weapons falling into the hands of such Sunni extremist and al Qaeda-linked groups as the al-Nusra Front, there are also concerns about serious hurdles now likely to lie ahead for the international community trying to assemble a special team to work with Mr. Assad on securing his chemical arsenal.

Some foreign policy insiders, meanwhile, said the lack of specific intelligence about who ordered the Aug. 21 chemical weapons attack is the main reason why top Obama administration officials — including the president himself — have in recent days carefully assigned blame to “Assad’s regime” rather than the Syrian leader personally.”

““As far as I know, there’s no intelligence that links [Mr. Assad] directly to the operation, so that does raise the question of command and control,” said Bruce Riedel, a former CIA officer who heads the Intelligence Project at the Brookings Institution in Washington.”

“What’s worse, he said, is that as international pressure mounts on Mr. Assad to comply with international specialists, there could be “Syrian military units and generals who believe keeping chemical weapons is their trump card and key to their survival.””

Read more:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/sep/11/us-cant-prove-bashar-assad-approved-chemical-attac/