RUSSIA ROUTED MILLIONS TO INFLUENCE CLINTON IN URANIUM DEAL, INFORMANT TELLS CONGRESS
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Moscow routed millions of dollars to the U.S. expecting the funds would benefit ex-President Bill Clinton’s charitable initiative while his wife, Hillary Clinton, worked to reset relations with Russia, an FBI informant in an Obama administration-era uranium deal stated.
In a written statement to three congressional committees, informant Douglas Campbell said Russian nuclear executives told him that Moscow hired American lobbying firm APCO Worldwide to influence Hillary Clinton, then secretary of state, among others in the Obama administration, The Hill reported on Wednesday.
Campbell said Russian nuclear officials expected APCO to apply its $3 million annual lobbying fee from Moscow toward the Clintons’ Global Initiative. The contract detailed four $750,000 payments over a year’s time.
“APCO was expected to give assistance free of charge to the Clinton Global Initiative as part of their effort to create a favorable environment to ensure the Obama administration made affirmative decisions on everything from Uranium One to the U.S.-Russia Civilian Nuclear Cooperation agreement,” Campbell stated.
The so-called Uranium One deal in 2010 handed Russia control of 20 percent of the U.S.’s uranium supply. Hillary Clinton served on the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS), which unanimously approved the partial sale of the Canadian mining company Uranium One to Russian nuclear giant Rosatom.
FBI agents and the confidential informant made secret recordings, gathered records and intercepted emails dating back to 2009 that showed that Russian officials had compromised an American uranium trucking firm with bribes and kickbacks. However, the Department of Justice did not bring charges until 2014.
In a statement to The Hill, APCO said its activities involving client work for the Clinton Global Initiative and Tenex, a unit of Rosatom, were “totally separate and unconnected in any way” and that “any assertion otherwise is false and unfounded.”
Nick Merrill, a spokesman for Hillary Clinton, told the outlet that Campbell’s statement is being used as a distraction from special counsel Robert Mueller’s probe into possible collusion between President Donald Trump’s campaign and the Russians in the 2016 election.
“Just yesterday the committee made clear that this secret informant charade was just that—a charade,” Merrill said Wednesday. “Along with the widely debunked text-message-gate and Nunes’ embarrassing memo episode, we have a trifecta of GOP-manufactured scandals designed to distract from their own president’s problems and the threat to democracy he poses.”
Tags
Who is online
519 visitors
The so-called Uranium One deal in 2010 handed Russia control of 20 percent of the U.S.’s uranium supply. Hillary Clinton served on the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS), which unanimously approved the partial sale of the Canadian mining company Uranium One to Russian nuclear giant Rosatom.
Yup - it's starting to come around.
What's coming around?
the article is dated 02/08/2018 ????
And????
Please discuss the subject matter.
Thanks.
I'll interpret that for the literate -
"Please beat this dead horse another time."
Commenting on your comment is on topic, no?
OK, the Russian's have an energy company that has a stake in an uranium mining company which is not allowed by US law to ship yellowcake out of the country.
Some nefarious people figured out how to add Uranium One to an older shipping contract which allowed some yellowcake to be exported to Canada and beyond to who knows where from 2012 to 2014 when it was discovered and stopped by the FBI and Congress. True
The original deal was approved by 9 different government agencies, including State. Did Clinton sign anything that approved the deal? Apparently not.
But you want to keep beating this dead horse?
Go for it.
Perhaps we can review these February 2018 events or make seeds?
jest saying..........
Here, I think you left this on one of someone else's' articles.
You appear to need it back.
Excellent translation and spot on!
Sounds "conjecturally" familiar these days ! (Smiley Face)
MIC DROP!
Hasn't this Uranium One Deal and Hillary Clinton been dissected, hammered, flossed, rolled over, over rolled, sliced, diced, partitioned, stuck into a clay mold, disjointed, rejointed and finally folded and secured with a paper clip all the while the investigations into Benghazi, Tarmacs, Emails and even the Vince Foster thingy were fervently being engaged?
Coming around? To where? Tarmacs all over again? Sheesh!
This HDS is almost as bad as Benghazi and Whitewater. The GOP is desperate and need to deflect attention from Trump, so they try to drag Hillary back into the news for a non-issue for the fiftieth time.
You're from her state - wouldn't expect any other answer.
Damn. Never knew Hillary Clinton was from Ohio. Googled it---can not find any confirmation.
We have enough politicians in Ohio, so we don't need Hillary.
That's what we have been saying since 2016.. [deleted]
Why did you take my statement out of context?
Yeah well, we got Dewine and the rest of the flotsam. Hang tough.
I cannot believe a majority of the people who voted in November supported that old fart and his corporate lies. Didn't they learn their lesson when he was a senator?
Nah. Ohio is a red state. Trumpism is here.
Am waiting for the PP's to be firebombed.
WWWooooWWWW - guess ya'll are tired of losing on the other threads - have at it.
Snopes is not a reliable source.
Do you prefer these fact checkers,
I've been told that MBFC is the most accurate, and is used to determine acceptability for articles seeded on NT. That's not to say it doesn't have any bias, but at least it's more reliable than the others.
I've been told that "we" as the NT community, used 2 other sources over the past decade and that the members, almost exclusively 'conservative' members,
voted out the 2 previous "sources" in favor of MBFC as the least biased "fact checkers, at least of the media, as opposed to individual issues or events.
If, I may add my opinion, MBFC softens their opinions of the fringes and errs', frequently, on the side of caution.
When the "Fact Checkers" get checked they seem to be doing a reasonable job, though it is wise to source several of them since their accuracy range can vary.
As to that conservative refrain of "That site or that site is biased & can't be trusted", almost always comes down to that old saw, " Facts have a well known liberal bias ".
RealClear Politics - Fact Check Review
Seriously? Hillary again?
again? ya mean still?
common knowledge... look it up.
https://www.bing.com/search?q=is+hillary+under+investigation