Hillary, Mueller and the Democrat Party: The Real Russian Colluders

“This includes Robert Mueller who was head of the FBI at that time and he knew exactly what was going on and he further raised no objections to this traitorous scheme with the Russians…Is it any wonder this same Robert Mueller would like to put Trump behind bars…as a cover up for his own illegal activities as head of the FBI at that particular time involving the Uranium One sell off….Uranium is used to make yellow cake…Yellow cake is used to make nuclear bombs and warheads…Does anyone not see the dangers in all of this to our national security?… Trump does and that is why he stated earlier during his campaigning “You should be in jail” directly to Hillary Clinton’s face during the debates that  time…The MSM shied away from asking Trump what he was referring to…Of course they didn’t and wouldn’t…Hillary Clinton got off Scott free and now the MSM in collusion with the Democrats want to impeach Trump…Why?…Possibly because he knows where all the dead bodies lie.”

"In doing some research I found this most interesting and factual comment that sums things up perfectly."

The entire seed reads like a Nigerian Prince letter. You don't expect actual thinking humans to believe this bullshit do you?

He doesn't believe it himself, [removed.]  It's long past time for thinking humans to simply ignore his nonsense.

he entire seed reads like a Nigerian Prince letter. You don't expect actual thinking humans to believe this bullshit do you?

what r u talkin bout,

how do you think he got so rich,

Rich is also called Dick

,

u can finish the equation 

but

rich in false hoods to promote "White" wons where we all lose as a country do to IGNORANCE FCKN RULING

Enuff already, lying basturd losers N confusers need to be called the fck out, but, but , i'm too busy to get call waiting, while LYING in 

the White House of Horrors, el bizarros , 

lying inn weight,

No Vacancy, except th acceptance between their damn ears 

Well, there are huge amounts of progressive liberals that believe HRC is a honest, upstanding, and law abiding model citizen so go figure..

there are huge amounts of progressive liberals that believe HRC is a honest, upstanding, and law abiding model citizen so go figure..

Considering the only evidence to the contrary came from Putin's greasy butthole, it's an understandable position to take. Dozens of indictments of Trumps campaign staff, none of Hillary or her staff but she's the supposed criminal. She's not that likable, I'll admit, she was a terrible choice for 2016 and was an easy target for Russian propaganda and warped piece of shit partisan Republicans with an ax to grind. But there simply is no evidence of her being the criminal so many Trump sycophants imagine her to be.

Facts matter to progressives?  Hell will freeze over before that happens.  

Facts matter to progressives?  Hell will freeze over before that happens.

Get out your snow shovel then I guess, cause I consider myself fairly progressive and I hate falsehoods and demand facts. 

Reality I can deal with, non reality is a bit more difficult.

The world changes, (progresses forward) no problem unless you are deceived about those changes and are still making decisions now based on falsehoods. That will fuck ya up sooner or later, So I prefer facts. 

Facts and progressives are total strangers having never yet met.  

Facts and progressives are total strangers having never yet met.

Evidently that is in your mind, introduce them.

I live it each day as I move safely forward because of it and knowing what my reality is that I need to deal with. 

I do fine knowing the facts of reality, non reality is what I have a problem with accepting.

Further more I believe words have power and one should use words truthfully,carefully and accurately. Facts are for strong people lies are for weak people. I'm not weak.

When will Mexico be paying for that wall again? 

Lock 🔒 her up and throw away the key 🔑.  Hillary is a treasonous witch who sold out to and colluded with the Russians for both political reasons and personal financial gain.  The swamp needs to be fully drained of all ties to the criminal thug Obama regime.  

the desperate squealing on the right will just get louder the closer we get to the release of the Mueller investigation. look at the bright side, the antics of Putin's rent-boy in the white house will make Nixon look like a choirboy in comparison.

The evil Mueller? 

the Uranium One sell off…

The Deal

On June 8, 2010, Uranium One   announced   it had signed an agreement that would give “not less than 51%” of the company to JSC Atomredmetzoloto, or ARMZ, the mining arm of Rosatom, the Russian nuclear energy agency.

At the time, Uranium One’s two licensed mining operations in Wyoming amounted to about “20 percent of the currently licensed uranium in-situ recovery production capacity in the U.S.,”   according to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.  In-situ recovery is the extraction method currently used by   10 of the 11   licensed U.S. uranium producers.

Uranium One also has   exploration projects   in Arizona, Colorado and Utah.

But the deal required multiple approvals by the U.S., beginning with the   Committee on Foreign Investments in the United States . Under federal law, the committee   reviews   foreign investments that raise potential national security concerns.

The Committee on Foreign Investments in the United States

The Committee on Foreign Investments has nine members, including the secretaries of the treasury, state, defense, homeland security, commerce and energy; the attorney general; and representatives from two White House offices (the United States Trade Representative and the Office of Science and Technology Policy).

The committee can’t actually stop a sale from going through — it can only approve a sale. The president is the only one who can stop a sale, if the committee or any one member “recommends suspension or prohibition of the transaction,” according to  guidelines   issued by the Treasury Department in December 2008 after the department adopted its  final rule   a month earlier.

For this and other reasons, we have written that Trump is   wrong   to claim that Clinton “gave away 20 percent of the uranium in the United States” to Russia. Clinton could have objected — as could the eight other voting members — but that objection alone wouldn’t have stopped the sale of the stake of Uranium One to Rosatom.

“Only the President has the authority to suspend or prohibit a covered transaction,” the federal guidelines say.

We don’t know much about the committee’s deliberations because there are “strong confidentiality requirements” prohibiting disclosure of information filed with the committee, the Treasury Department  says   on its website. Some information would have become available if the committee or any one of its members objected to the sale. But none of the nine members objected.

“When a transaction is referred to the President, however, the decision of the President is announced publicly,” Treasury says.

We don’t even know if Clinton was involved in the committee’s review and approval of the uranium deal. Jose Fernandez,   a former assistant secretary of state , told the   New York Times   that he represented the department on the committee. “Mrs. Clinton never intervened with me on any C.F.I.U.S. matter,”   he told the   Times , referring to the committee by its acronym.

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission

It is also important to note that other federal approvals were needed to complete the deal, and even still more approvals would be needed to export the uranium.

First, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission had to approve the transfer of two uranium recovery licenses in Wyoming from Uranium One to the Russian company. The NRC   announced   it approved the transfer on Nov. 24, 2010. But,   as the NRC explained at the time , “no uranium produced at either facility may be exported.”

As NRC explained in a   March 2011 letter   to Republican Sen. John Barrasso of Wyoming, the Russian company would have to apply for and obtain an export license and “commit to use the material only for peaceful purposes” in accordance with “the U.S.-Russia Atomic Energy Act Section 123 agreement for peaceful nuclear cooperation.”

In a   June 2015 letter   to Rep. Peter Visclosky, the NRC said it granted RSB Logistics Services an amendment to its export license in 2012 to allow the Kentucky shipping company to export uranium to Canada from various sources — including from a Uranium One site in Wyoming. The NRC said that the export license allowed RSB to ship uranium to a conversion plant in Canada and then back to the United States for further processing.

Canada must obtain U.S. approval to transfer any U.S. uranium to any country other than the United States, the letter says.

“Please be assured that no Uranium One, Inc.-produced uranium has been shipped directly to Russia and the U.S. Government has not authorized any country to re-transfer U.S. uranium to Russia,” the 2015 letter said.

“That 2015 statement remains true today,” David McIntyre, a spokesman for the NRC, told us in an email.

RSB Logistics’  current export license , which expires in December, still lists Uranium One as one of its suppliers of uranium.

Uranium One, which is now   wholly-owned  subsidiary of Rosatom, sells uranium to civilian power reactors in the United States,   according to the Energy Information Administration . But U.S. owners and operators of commercial nuclear reactors purchase the vast majority of their uranium from foreign sources. Only 11 percent of the 50.6 million pounds purchased in 2016 came from U.S. domestic producers,   according to the EIA .

Although Uranium One once held 20 percent of licensed uranium in-situ recovery production capacity in the U.S., that’s no longer the case. There were   only four   in-situ recovery facilities licensed by the NRC in 2010. Currently, there are   10 such facilities , so Uranium One’s mining operations now account for an estimated 10 percent of in-situ recovery production capacity in the U.S., the NRC told us in an email.

As for production, the company was responsible for only about 11 percent of U.S. uranium production in 2014, according to  2015 congressional testimony  by a Department of Energy contractor. More recently, Uranium One has been responsible for no more than 5.9 percent of domestic production, according to a   September 2017 report   by the U.S. International Trade Commission.

Clinton Foundation Donations and Bill Clinton Speaking Fee

Clinton’s role in the Uranium One sale, and the link to the Clinton Foundation, first became an issue in 2015, when news organizations received advance copies of the book “Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich,” by Peter Schweizer, a former fellow at a conservative think tank.

On April 23, 2015, the  New York Times   wrote  about the uranium issue, saying the paper had “built upon” Schweizer’s information.

The  Times  detailed how the Clinton Foundation had received millions in donations from investors in Uranium One.

The donations from those with ties to Uranium One weren’t publicly disclosed by the Clinton Foundation, even though Hillary Clinton had an agreement with the White House that the foundation would disclose all contributors. Days after the  Times  story, the foundation acknowledged that it “ made mistakes ,” saying it had disclosed donations from a Canadian charity, for instance, but not the donors to that charity who were associated with the uranium company.

The  Times  also wrote that Bill Clinton spoke at a conference in Moscow on June 29, 2010 — which was after the Rosatom-Uranium One merger was announced in June 2010, but before it was approved by the Committee on Foreign Investments in the United States in October 2010. The Russian-based   Renaissance Capital Group   organized the conference and paid Clinton   $500,000 .

Renaissance Capital has “ties to the Kremlin” and its analysts “talked up Uranium One’s stock, assigning it a ‘buy’ rating and saying in a July 2010 research report that it was ‘the best play’ in the uranium markets,” the   Times   wrote.

But there is no evidence that the donations or the speaking fee had any influence on the approvals granted by the NRC or the Committee on Foreign Investments.

Back in the News

This arcane bit of campaign trivia resurfaced in the news after   The Hill , a Capitol Hill newspaper,   reported   that a Russian spy sought to gain access to Hillary Clinton when she was secretary of state.

Lydia Guryev, who used the name “Cynthia Murphy” while living in the United States,   pleaded guilty  to espionage charges in July 2010 and was forced to leave the U.S. Her guilty plea came after the Rosatom-Uranium One merger was announced and before the Committee on Foreign Investments approved it. But there was nothing about the merger in the   federal criminal complaint   or the   press release   announcing her guilty plea.

The criminal complaint said that Guryev had been working as a spy in the United States since the 1990s and took orders from the foreign intelligence organ of the Russian Federation in Moscow.

For example, Guryev was ordered in the spring of 2009, in advance of Obama’s upcoming trip to Russia, to get information on “Obama’s goals which he expects to achieve during the summit [with Russia] in July,” the complaint said.

The only reference in the criminal complaint to Clinton was a veiled one. Federal agents said Guryev sought to get close with “a personal friend of [a current Cabinet official, name omitted].”   The Hill   identified the cabinet official as Clinton.

The Hill   story also rehashed an FBI investigation that resulted in “charges against the Russian nuclear industry’s point man in the United States, TENEX director Vadim Mikerin, as well as a Russian financier and an American trucking executive whose company moved Russian uranium around the United States.”

In 2015, Mikerin was sentenced to 48 months and required to pay more than $2 million in restitution for conspiring to commit money laundering,   according to the Justice Department .

The Hill   quoted the attorney for a former FBI informant in the TENEX case as saying her client “witnessed numerous, detailed conversations in which Russian actors described their efforts to lobby, influence or ingratiate themselves with the Clintons in hopes of winning favorable uranium decisions from the Obama administration.”

The convictions of Guryev and Mikerin are not new, and there’s no evidence that either case has any connection to the Rosatom-Uranium One merger. Nevertheless, the article has prompted the Republican chairmen of the House intelligence and oversight committees to announce a   joint investigation   of the merger.

On Fox News, Rep. Devin Nunes, the chairman of the House intelligence committee,   said   that “we’ve been communicating back and forth through different channels” with the FBI informant in the TENEX case.

“You are talking about major decisions that were made at a time when we were resetting relations with Russia that actually happened to benefit, you know, the Clinton Foundation, perhaps other avenues, we don’t know yet,” Nunes said in an Oct. 24 interview with Bret Baier.

It may be that individuals and companies sought to curry favor with Hillary Clinton and even influence her department’s decision on the Uranium One sale. But, as we’ve written before, there is no evidence that donations to the Clinton Foundation from people with ties to Uranium One or Bill Clinton’s speaking fee influenced Hillary Clinton’s official actions. That’s still the case. We will update this article with any major developments.

Update, Nov. 1: This story has been updated to say that NRC now estimates that Uranium One’s mining operations account for about 10 percent of in-situ recovery production capacity in the U.S. That’s half of what it was in 2010, because more in-situ recovery mining operators have been licensed since 2010.

We also added that Uranium One is responsible for no more than 5.9 percent of domestic production, according to a September 2017 report by the U.S. International Trade Commission.

factcheck

The Uranium one sell off is more corrupt than anything Trump has done in office.

She took millions from Putin's cronies, failed to disclose it like she was supposed to, and then sat as a judge on their application.  

Corruption doesn't get anymore pure than that. 

took millions from Putin's cronies

NOPE! Just another debunked right-wing smear to take attention away from "Jess Willard" realities.

Says associates of financier Bill Browder "sent a huge amount of money, over $400 million, as a contribution to the campaign of Hillary Clinton."

—   Vladimir Putin   on Monday, July 16th, 2018 in a press conference with President Donald Trump

Russian President Vladimir Putin offered a novel idea to advance the Russia investigation during a joint news conference with President Donald Trump in Helsinki.

Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s team could come to his country, Putin said, if Russian investigators were allowed to go the United States to dig into alleged tax evasion by American-born financier Bill Browder and his associates.

"Business associates of Mr. Browder have earned over 1.5 billion dollars in Russia," Putin said through a translator. "They never paid any taxes."

Putin continued.

"They sent a huge amount of money, over 400 million, as a contribution to the campaign of Hillary Clinton," he said. "Well, that’s their personal case. It might have been legal, the contribution itself, but the way the money was earned was illegal."

Did Browder's associates send $400 million to Hillary Clinton's campaign?

No. We found $17,700 donated to Clinton and another $297,000 to the Democratic National Committee.

A little background

The Russians say that Browder and his partners at Ziff Brothers Investments, a New York venture capital firm, illegally syphoned billions of rubles out of the country. To add salt to the wound, Browder had led the charge to pass the 2012 Magnitsky Act, a law that penalizes Russian officials suspected of sanctioning the death of Browder’s lawyer Sergei Magnitsky in a Russian prison.

The Ziff brothers came up during the June 2016 meeting at Trump Tower between Donald Trump Jr. and others, and Natalia V. Veselnitskaya, a Russian lawyer who promised dirt on the Hillary Clinton campaign. According to transcripts from Senate Judiciary Committee interviews, Veselnitskaya’s materials described the Ziffs as Democratic donors, although Trump’s son said they gave both to Democrats and Republicans.

Follow the money
We reached out to the Russian Embassy and the Russian consulate in Washington to get details on the $400 million donation and had not heard back in time for our deadline.

Given that Veselnitskaya tied Browder and the Ziff brothers together, we researched their political donations.

Browder became a British citizen and can’t legally contribute to U.S. candidates. Ziff Brothers Investments through its executives can give freely, and they have.

Before we get into their political contributions, we also wondered if Putin could have been talking about money that went to the Clinton Foundation. In past years, Browder and Ziff Brothers Investments had given to the Clinton Global Initiative, a project of the Clinton Foundation, but the total was not more than $110,000, records show.

In the 2016 election cycle, Ziff Brothers Investments gave $1.7 million. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, nearly two-thirds, or about $1.1 million, went to Democratic committees, and the rest to Republicans.

The center listed the firm’s top recipients:

Recipient

Amount

DNC Services Corp

$296,966

Senate Majority PAC

$250,000

Defending Main Street

$200,000

Democratic Senatorial Campaign Cmte

$40,000

Democratic State Central Cmte/Louisiana

$35,412

National Republican Congressional Cmte

$32,400

Democratic Party of Montana

$28,622

Democratic Executive Cmte of Florida

$27,287

Democratic Party of New Hampshire

$27,287

Democratic Party of Virginia

$27,287

Democratic Party of Wisconsin

$27,287

Georgia Federal Elections Cmte

$27,287

Federal law puts tighter limits on contributions to individual candidates. Here, the Ziffs mainly put their money into incumbents, and Republicans did better by a margin of about $145,000 to $46,000. Clinton’s campaign received $17,700.

Unless Putin had other Browder associates in mind, his figure of $400 million going to the Clinton campaign is a massive exaggeration. Between the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee, the Ziffs gave about $315,000.

The Clinton campaign raised $563 million overall, so Putin's sum would account for nearly three-fourths of all donations. (PACs affiliated with Clinton's campaign raised an additional $231 million, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.)

Our ruling

Putin said associates of Bill Browder gave $400 million to the Clinton campaign. The associates appear to be the Ziff brothers. According to public data, Ziff Brothers Investments gave about $315,000 to Clinton and the Democratic National Committee.

Overall, the firm gave about $1.1 million to Democratic committees around the country.

The exaggeration is so great, we rate this claim Pants on Fire.

Says associates of financier Bill Browder "sent a huge amount of money, over $400 million, as a contribution to the campaign of Hillary Clinton."

About this statement:
Published: Monday, July 16th, 2018 at 5:28 p.m.

Researched by: Jon Greenberg, Louis Jacobson

Edited by: Katie Sanders

Subjects: Campaign Finance

Sources:
White House, Helsinki summit news conference, July 16, 2018

Senate Judiciary Committee, testimony by Ike Kaveladze, Nov. 3, 2017

Center for Responsive Politics, Ziff Brothers Investments, accessed July 16, 2018

Bloomberg, Russian Lawyer Who Met Trump

politifact

We care as much about what politifact has to say as what Snopes, MBFC, the SPLC have to say about anything which is not at all other than to call them all the biased liars that they are.  We conservatives have near universal contempt of and spite for all four equally.  

In other words you could care less about the facts unless it fits your agenda! What was that you were saying about progressives and facts again?

No, I’m saying that the Gang of Four above could care less about the truth.  They exist to attack Christianity and conservatives while advancing a so called pro science secular progressive agenda.  

The seeded article is from CDN, Conservative Daily News … one of a number of right-wing lie-machines that genuflect to "Jess Willard Trump" … on their website they list the "LINKS THEY LOVE" …

All of which are exceptional and excellent sources of the truth.  The best of the best.  

The truth?!.....but their facts are nonexistent!

There are no facts in secular progressive news nor any truth in their opinion.  

"Hillary, Mueller And The Democrat Party: The Real Russian Colluders"...

...which is why Russia spent $1.25 million a month on a social media propaganda campaign to help Donald Trump, stole emails from an American political party and released them to throw an election in their preferred candidates favor and Putin replied when asked “President Putin, did you want President Trump to win the election and did you direct any of your officials to help him do that?” with “Yes, I did. Yes, I did. Because he talked about bringing the U.S.–Russia relationship back to normal.” Yeah, that was all part of the Democrats master plan... /s Are some conservatives really this fucking stupid?

And any actual patriotic American knows exactly what Putin thinks should be the "normal" US-Russia relationship, the US on its knees with Putin's slimy authoritarian dick in its mouth. Trump and his sycophant followers have given him exactly what he asked for and they've had to swallow their pride along with Putin's man batter propaganda. We need to get rid of the embarrassing traitor and send Putin a message he won't soon forget. They've already gone to a new cold war footing, if we don't wise up and realize that it's going to be to late. Fuck Putin and fuck his piece of shit government, it should be burned to the ground. The US should use our entire cyber resources into fucking Putin in their next election and prevent the slime from stuffing the ballots boxes as he did last time, something I'm sure Trump would do if he could get away with it.

Pure and unadulterated left wing political propaganda on every last point.  Thanks for stopping by.  

Pure and unadulterated left wing political propaganda on every last point.

may be you should hone that fine point  to a d ull tree

zone us skill less more on than off 10

due e pile driven N 2 O so many laughing

at him D bomb    xplode ding    at a boy named sou' her anthem as well

Even 

this

makes more sense than what you are constanty trying to push

on

peoples, like you were pushing a medication,

a deceptive distribution of an opiate for the masses

of asses, fooled, by food thoroughly not thought , by a partythat ought not of let itself get 

bought n paid fir nothing

in return  n   thensum 

Pure and unadulterated left wing political propaganda on every last point.

So now Putin's own words are "left wing political propaganda"? Really?

Wow! Didnt know facts had a left leaning agenda

True objective facts actually favor and lean toward the agenda of the religious right.