for example the U1 deal is an act of treason and we all know it. Morally speaking, that is. In legal terms though, we’re not at war with Russia. Selling uranium or anything else to them is no different than selling the same thing to Canada or Japan.
________________________________________________________
One question I have about the U1 deal and have neglected to ask is this...
if we/the U.S./Party #1 sold uranium to Party #2, removing POS Hillary Clinton from the equation, what did Party #1 receive from Party #2 for the uranium? I have not read anywhere to date that the U.S. got compensation commiserate to the sale of the uranium?
Or has this theory already been debunked, or at this point, what difference does it make??
The uranium was purchased from private individuals and companies. I believe a good share of it was purchased by Canadian (and Clinton pal) Frank Giustra before Russians were officially involved.
Privately owned uranium sales needed government approval because it is a strategic (military) asset, not because it belonged to the government.
The #1 was a Canadian Company which owned the land/uranium mine. The Canadian Company donated millions of dollars to CF, while Russia paid Bill’s speaker fee-half a million, IIRC.
The USA at that time got 20% of it’s uranium supply from this company. Russia pledged not to own more than a certain % and not to make it a private company. Eventually, they acquired 100% of the stock, made it a private company and delisted it from the Toronto Stock Exchange.
Oh, and John Podesta got a bunch of stock, which I assume made him a bunch of money.
http://www.businessinsider.com/the-clintons-putin-and-uranium-2015-4
As I understand it, Russians bought the company (Canadian based) that holds claims or property title to land representing ~20% of proven reserves.
I’d bet the real quid-pro-quo in this lies in what was involved in tying up a large chunk of other potential reserves in the Bears Ears and Grand Staircase wilderness deals.
Frequently the expansion of wilderness areas has the side effect of massively enriching some connected company or politician. It was as such in the expansion of the Utah wilderness that took US anthracite deposits out of competition with Indonesian ones and it happened when Feinstein’s husband got a huge mineral resource in the deal that removed a significant hunk of CA desert lands from productive use in the desert wilderness protection act.
The U.S. didn’t sell, it was a private transaction. It appears approval for the sale had to come from the feds.
Here’s an interesting take, which Lenzner tries to exonerate Clinton but it looks like he actually connects some dots.