╌>

Clinton Uranium One deal: FBI informant blocked by Obama-era AG can unlock key info, attorney says

  

Category:  News & Politics

Via:  vic-eldred  •  8 years ago  •  27 comments

Clinton Uranium One deal: FBI informant blocked by Obama-era AG can unlock key info, attorney says

This Isn’t ‘a Total Witch Hunt!’—Jeff Sessions Is in Real Trouble | The Nation


An informant for the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) is under a gag order that prevents him from testifying before the United States Congress that Russian nuclear officials were involved in fraudulent dealings in 2009 before the Uranium One deal was approved.



This iframe is not allowed


Former Attorney General Loretta Lynch blocked the informant from testifying last year and threatened criminal action against him if he were to do so.

In an interview with FOX Business’ Lou Dobbs, Victoria Toensing, the attorney representing the FBI informant, said she has never heard of a criminal penalty for breaching a non-disclosure agreement (NDA).


“If it does and it is unconstitutional and it’s invalid, if it prohibits my client from giving information to the legislature, the executive cannot say to people, ‘Hey, you can’t give information to another body of the government,’” Toensing said.

The former Reagan Justice Department official and former chief counsel of the Senate Intelligence Committee said the impact of her client’s knowledge of the Russians’ ability to use the Clintons’ position of power is significant.

“He can tell what all the Russians were talking about during the time that all these bribery payments were made,” Toensing said on “Lou Dobbs Tonight.”

The House Oversight Committee is investigating the Obama-era Uranium One deal, and Rep. Ron DeSantis (R-Florida) is calling for the Justice Department to remove the NDA that prevents the former FBI informant from testifying.

“We are glad Ron DeSantis is doing it because he is a former federal prosecutor, and he is a go-getter on this and I think he’ll do a great job,” Toensing said.


Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
[]
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1  seeder  Vic Eldred    8 years ago

Go Ron

 
 
 
Studiusbagus
Sophomore Quiet
1.1  Studiusbagus  replied to  Vic Eldred @1    8 years ago

Is there a link to this?

 
 
 
Willjay9
Freshman Silent
1.1.1  Willjay9  replied to  Studiusbagus @1.1    8 years ago

It came from Fox Business.....nuff said

 
 
 
Jonathan P
Sophomore Silent
1.1.3  Jonathan P  replied to  Willjay9 @1.1.1    8 years ago

Newsweek?

 
 
 
Willjay9
Freshman Silent
1.1.4  Willjay9  replied to  Jonathan P @1.1.3    8 years ago

Umm.......so the part IN the article that states

In an interview with FOX Business’ Lou Dobbs

Didn't seem to register huh?

 
 
 
Willjay9
Freshman Silent
1.1.5  Willjay9  replied to  gooseisgone @1.1.2    8 years ago
Except that it didn't.

Really?

So I guess that part about

In an interview with FOX Business’ Lou Dobbs

Is just another alternative fact in your universe huh?

This seed came word for word from the Fox Business article!

An informant for the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) is under a gag order that prevents him from testifying before the United States Congress that Russian nuclear officials were involved in fraudulent dealings in 2009 before the Uranium One deal was approved.
Former Attorney General Loretta Lynch blocked the informant from testifying last year and threatened criminal action against him if he were to do so.
In an interview with FOX Business’ Lou Dobbs, Victoria Toensing, the attorney representing the FBI informant, said she has never heard of a criminal penalty for breaching a non-disclosure agreement (NDA).
width="1" height="1" marginheight="0" marginwidth="0" frameborder="0"> “If it does and it is unconstitutional and it’s invalid, if it prohibits my client from giving information to the legislature, the executive cannot say to people, ‘Hey, you can’t give information to another body of the government,’” Toensing said.
 
 
 
Jonathan P
Sophomore Silent
1.1.6  Jonathan P  replied to  Willjay9 @1.1.4    8 years ago

If you really don't wish to discuss the topic, why do you keep posting?

 
 
 
Willjay9
Freshman Silent
1.1.7  Willjay9  replied to  Jonathan P @1.1.3    8 years ago

Rosatom began its purchase of Uranium One, a Canadian mining firm that has licenses to mine American uranium deposits in Kazakhstan, in 2009. The sale ended in 2013 and transferred the uranium—which made up 20 percent of American reserves—into Russian hands.

You see the only reason we can do something to them NOW is because they NOW have the uranium and it becomes a national security issue NOW...not back in 2009!

 
 
 
Willjay9
Freshman Silent
1.1.8  Willjay9  replied to  Jonathan P @1.1.6    8 years ago

Umm....the topic is about some supposed witness who signed a NDA who claims was stopped from testifying to Congress......what does your link have to do with that?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.1.9  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Studiusbagus @1.1    8 years ago



And picked up by about 10 other outlets

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.1.10  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Willjay9 @1.1.7    8 years ago
You see the only reason we can do something to them NOW is because they NOW have the uranium and it becomes a national security issue NOW...not back in 2009!

Then maybe you can tell us what was so good about selling 20% of the US supply of uranium?

 
 
 
Willjay9
Freshman Silent
1.1.11  Willjay9  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.10    8 years ago

Maybe because we didn't sell off 20% of our uranium supply! Uranium One SUPPLIES 1/5 of our uranium production capacity. Basically one private company bought out another private company, which followed the guidelines laid out by us regarding corporate mergers

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.1.12  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Willjay9 @1.1.11    8 years ago
Maybe because we didn't sell off 20% of our uranium supply!

False

 
 
 
Willjay9
Freshman Silent
1.1.13  Willjay9  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.12    8 years ago

First off despite what you on the right believe the uranium has gone nowhere, Russia doesn’t have a license to export uranium from the United States (for now anyway) the uranium still remains under the control of the US based subsidiaries of Uranium One, and that is coming from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

 Second that 1/5 number you all are trying to quote goes to the mines, and other facilities in the US that equals to 20% of US uranium production capacity . The actual production number is around 11%.....ALL of which is STILL IN THE UNITED STATES!

 
 
 
Willjay9
Freshman Silent
1.1.15  Willjay9  replied to    8 years ago
Educate yourselves, This article is from 2015 FFS. they have been exporting the uranium.

COMEDY! I need to educate myself?! LOL!

yellowcake from his property was routinely packed into drums and trucked off to a processing plant in Canada.

Dude! That’s yellowcake! NOT actual URANIUM ORE! A uranium miner such as Mr. Christiansen knows the difference, but ran with the fact that the average person doesn't and you all ate it up!

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.

So which is it, was yellowcake shipped or uranium?

That's not the US either so please put the complete BS, that they can't ship it out of the US to rest. 

You can’t show one iota of proof that URANIUM ORE has been shipped out of the US by Russia

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
2  Sean Treacy    8 years ago

It's been clear that the Clintons were doing what they always do, selling governmental access for cash. 

What's interesting here is that Obama's DOJ slow walked and lied about  an investigation into Russian bribery, apparently to keep his "reset" moving forward. 

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Guide
3  MrFrost    8 years ago

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. See Example( s )

.

RATING

det-red.gif   FALSE
.
.
.
The Uranium One deal was not Clinton’s to veto or approve
 
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 its chairperson. CFIUS members are collectively charged with evaluating the transaction 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. According to   The New York Times , Clinton may not have even directly participated in the Uranium One decision. Then-Assistant Secretary of State Jose Fernandez, whose job it was to represent the State Dept. on CFIUS,   said   Clinton herself “never intervened” in committee matters.
.
Once again, another right wing conspiracy is debunked...in this case, years ago. 
 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
3.1  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  MrFrost @3    8 years ago

You should try reading the article - It dosen't mention Hillary Clinton - It talks about the "gag order" put on a whistle blower by the Obama justice department

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Guide
4  MrFrost    8 years ago

Donald Trump inaccurately suggests Clinton got paid to approve Russia uranium deal

.

Our ruling

Trump said, "Hillary Clinton’s State Department approved the transfer of 20 percent of America’s uranium holdings to Russia, while nine investors in the deal funneled $145 million to the Clinton Foundation."

There’s a grain of truth in this claim. Clinton’s State Department was one of nine government agencies to approve Russia’s acquisition of a company with U.S. uranium assets. Nine people related the company at some point in time donated to the Clinton Foundation, but we only found evidence that one did so "while" the Russian deal was occurring. The bulk of the $145 million in donations came two years before the deal.

Trump is certainly within his right to question the indisputable links between Clinton Foundation donors and their ties to Uranium One, but Trump’s charge exaggerates the links. More importantly, his suggestion of a quid pro quo is unsubstantiated, as Schweizer the author of   Clinton Cash   himself has admitted.

On the most basic level, Trump’s timeline is off. Most of the donations occurred before Clinton was named secretary of state.

We rate Trump’s claim Mostly False.

Correction : A previous version of this story misspelled the name of the State Department’s representative on the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States. He is Jose Fernandez.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
4.1  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  MrFrost @4    8 years ago

The article is not about Trump

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Guide
5  MrFrost    8 years ago

This is, once again, trump trying to distract the public from his problems. Just like trump announcing that LGBT members would no longer be allowed to serve in the US military. Just an hour before that announcement, Paul Manafort's home was raided by the FBI. This was debunked years ago and even the author of "Clinton Cash" admits what he said was not true. It literally is another made up scandal that is based almost entirely in bullshit. I did find it funny that trump said this was all "pay for play", when he is the one that used his "charitable foundation", (which is now shut down because it too is under investigation), to pay off the AG's of Florida and Texas to drop his trump u fraud case. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
5.1  Sean Treacy  replied to  MrFrost @5    8 years ago
This was debunked years ago
This was just reported a couple days ago. You should probably read what is being discussed before posting your generic Clinton approved "uranium talking points." 
It's Pavlovian, someone says Uranium, and the same talking points that never address the actual contention being made get posted without fail.
It's  a mystery. Do the Clinton apologists not understand the talking points, or  do they just want to mislead the audience?   

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Guide
6  MrFrost    8 years ago

This was just reported a couple days ago. You should probably read what is being discussed before posting your generic Clinton approved "uranium talking points." 

This is just rehashing old news. It's deflection, nothing more. The GOP are experts at beating dead horses for political gain... 9 benghazi investigations? Can you imagine the outrage by the GOP if after Mullers investigation turns up nothing the dems investigated the same thing......8.........more........times? Wow. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
6.1  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  MrFrost @6    8 years ago
This is just rehashing old news. It's deflection, nothing more.

I think it may be a bigger scandal than "teapot dome"

 
 

Who is online












73 visitors