HILLARY'S UNANIUM SCANDAL! THIS IS 'RADIOACTIVE'

Submitted by: Royce Latham

Clinton Foundation key to giving Putin 20% of US uranium

Clinton Foundation key to giving Putin 20% of US uranium   By Jon Rappoport   She could be the next US President.    He already was the President.    They're married.    Cue the dawn sunrise and violins for the beautiful first couple of American politics.    But what about the uranium scandal?   The what?   Before I quote a NY Times piece on this, consider----suppose, just suppose the beautiful first couple, Bill and Hillary, have been running a parallel operation to the government, in the form of a Foundation that is taking in major chunks of cash from people who want (and get) serious political favors.   Well, current news stories confirm that. We already know that.   But uranium?   Consider this plot line. Follow the bouncing ball.    Putin wants 20% of uranium on US soil. That 20% is owned by a Canadian mining company.    The Canadian executives want to sell it to Putin.    But because uranium is a US "national security" product, various US federal agencies have to OK the deal. One of those agencies is the US State Department.    The State Department is headed up by Hillary Clinton. Her Department says yes to the uranium deal.    The kicker? Those Canadian mining executives, who wanted the sale to Putin to go through, donated millions to the Clinton Foundation.   Getting the picture?    Memory is short. On April 23, 2015, the NY Times ran a story under the headline: Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation Amid Russian Uranium Deal.   The bare bones of the story: a Canadian company called Uranium One controlled a great deal of uranium production in the US. It was sold to Russia (meaning Putin and his minions). So Putin now controls 20% of US uranium production.   From the Times: "...the sale gave the Russians control of one-fifth of all uranium production capacity in the United States."   From the Times: "The [Pravda] article, in January 2013, detailed how the Russian atomic energy agency, Rosatom, had taken over a Canadian company [Uranium One] 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.   "Frank Giustra...a mining financier, has donated $31.3 million to the foundation run by former President Bill Clinton..."    "Since uranium is considered a strategic asset, with implications for national security, the deal [to sell Uranium One to Putin] 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."   If you're Putin and you're sitting in Moscow, and the uranium deal has just dropped this bonanza into your lap, what's your reaction---after you stop laughing and popping champagne corks? Or maybe you never really stop laughing. Maybe this is a joke that keeps on giving. You wake up in the middle of the night with a big grin plastered on your face, and you can't figure out why...and then you remember, oh yeah, the uranium deal. The US uranium. Who's running the show in America? Ha-ha-ha. Some egregious dolt? Maybe he's a sleeper agent we forgot about and he reactivated himself. And this Clinton Foundation---how can the beautiful couple get away with that? And she's going to be the next President? Can we give her a medal? Can we put up a statue of her in a park? Does Bill need any more hookers?   You shake your head and go back to sleep. You see a parade of little boats carrying uranium from the US to Russia. A pretty line of putt-putt boats. You chuckle. Row, row, row your boat...merrily, merrily, merrily, merrily...life is but a dream.    Good times.   Final note: there is a great deal of difference between a major outlet like the NY Times running their Clinton/uranium piece for one day---and pounding on it for weeks and months. In the latter case, they would let loose the hounds, who would probe and push and interview relevant people and get confessions and parlay those confessions up the food chain---blowing the story into an enormous scandal---which it is.   The Times had its hands on a volcanic piece...and they let it drop. Because the ceiling and the limit had been reached. The Times basically executed what's called a limited hangout, a partial exposure of a story that was getting too hot to suppress entirely.   The limited hangout allows the venting of steam---and then nothing more. In this case, the Clinton camp denies there was any quid pro quo, they assert Hillary had nothing to do with the uranium deal, and the curtain falls.    Thus you have the reality which the major media did expose, vs. the reality they could have exposed. The "could have" part would have changed current history---but it was squelched, and put under wraps.   Tossed on the junk heap.