Book Of Life

αω Bible †

Hillary Clinton's Hollywood buddies drug male prostitutes and then try to take over City Council for a pedio farm 08102017ad

#hillaryclinton 's friend was setting up WeHo ( #LosAngeles) City Council to be a #pediotopia place. although she goes cheese pizza, he likes past the puberty stage and just young black men. #buck likes then drugged up and black. has links to UK, LA and sources for this story. #LAPD are the #CIADeeppediopushers and so ED is not under an investigation for any crime, not even admitted prostitution. #USA is long gone. These are traitor COPS and traitor Police, and yes #colin #kaepernick is 100% correct these AntiAmerican cops are out of control working for #SATAN

Rape Case Hillary Clinton gave an interview years later where she admitted she knew the rapist was guilty but she got him off anyway and laughed, the same narcy laugh as her latest Ben Ghazi testimony during the section on constant calls by Ambassador Christopher Stevens to send reinforcements as early as six months prior to the 11 th September 2012 Libyan terrorist attacks in which she was as the Head of the State Department the regime changer , breaking another Obama campaign promises of no meddling in foreign affairs because the GOP were the only guilty party in history . Obama is the antichrist because he cannot tell a truthful fact.

Arc Michael
Apr 5, 3:29 PM avril 5 th 2017

#Pentagon still missing a combined amount of $7.4 trillion #USA dollars.
#arcMichael comment on this new 10% increase in military spending!
U mean 162 careerist will not get their $10 Billion Dollar bonus checks this year ? FU #RINO = #pentagon = #illegalarmy we never voted as #democrats ( small 'd' ) for draconian #state careerist surveillance from 260 super high secret Islamic Intel members. Wonder why #NSA and #CIA import 200,000,000 brown latinoarabs? Because they are paid off #pigs = #fakehebrews = #wasa - #Nazi , appear white but have little-to-no white dna.

There are a large group of white people not even in American during slavery who suffer daily × whitegenocide worldwide

25 Reasons Not to Vote for Hillary Clinton ( SOMEONE ELSE WROTE)

Note: Given Hillary Clinton's disgusting and corrupt track record, this could easily have been a much bigger list. In fact, I'm not even sure you could adequately cover how unfit Hillary is for the Presidency in a 200 page book, much less a column. With that in mind, I decided to keep this list at 25 items to make it more easily digestible.

1) Hillary Clinton is almost 69 years old; she had a serious head injury after passing out in 2012 and she's had a much remarked upon uncontrollable cough throughout much of this year's campaign. The presidency is an enormously demanding job that visibly ages the person in the Oval Office. If someone who simply isn't well enough to be President becomes the leader of the Free World, it could lead to devastating consequences as she futilely struggles to do the job.

2) If you really want a telling indication of what type of person Hillary Clinton is when she's not lying or coughing in public, know that Secret Service agents considered being tasked with guarding her to be a form of punishment.

3) "Hillary demanded White House workers never speak to her and hide behind the drapes when she appeared." You think someone like that cares about you? At all?

4) Hillary is so mentally unstable that she believes she had discussions with Eleanor Roosevelt and Mahatma Gandhi.

5) She is so out of touch she hasn't driven a car since 1996.

6) When she was practicing law, Hillary Clinton defended a man who raped a 12 year old girl. She tore the little girl apart on the stand, got the rapist off with a light sentence and later laughed about it with a reporter.

7) When her husband was governor, she took a $100,000 bribe that was paid to her via shifty dealings in the cattle futures market.

8) Under Hillary Clinton, the State Department did favors for a number of nations that either paid Bill Clinton ENORMOUS sums to do speeches or gave large gifts to the Clinton Foundation. That's unethical on its face and it seems likely that the Clintons were receiving outright bribes, but as was mentioned earlier in reference to her email scandal, Hillary Clinton seems to be above the law.

9) Considering the sometimes shady dealings the Clintons have had with foreign governments, Bill's inability to keep his pants up around willing women and the fact that Hillary Clinton's private email server appears to have been hacked, she will be uniquely vulnerable to blackmail by other nations.

10) This is a woman who has publicly declared that Republicans are her enemies. With someone like that in the White House, there can be nothing other than hatred, gridlock and vicious political infighting from the first day she takes office until the day she leaves.

11) Some people may not like Republicans or Bernie Sanders fans chanting "Lock her up," but Hillary Clinton didn't just lie over and over to the American people about her email server; she broke the law and deserves to go to jail. When you take someone who is the living personification of "Important people are above the law" and make her President, what message does it send to the rest of the country? How should we trust a woman who doesn't even deserve to have a security clearance with the Presidency? Why should anyone else follow the laws when Hillary Clinton gets to skate?

12) She claimed multiple times that she had to run for her life because her plane landed under SNIPER FIRE in Bosnia. Actually, when she landed there was a greeting ceremony and an 8 year old girl read her a poem.

13) She hasn't accomplished anything that shows she's qualified to be President. She got elected as senator in New York because her husband used to be the President and she did nothing of consequence while she was in office. Then she became Secretary of State where she did "little good and much harm." Why is she qualified to be President? Because she married the right guy? Because she has lady parts?

14) What message would it send to young women if someone as corrupt, dishonest and incompetent as Hillary Clinton were elected President? That morals don't matter? That you should hang in there with a husband who's banging everyone in town but you because it may benefit you? That you should be handed everything in life despite your lack of qualifications or aptitude because you're a woman who married the right man? Hillary is a loathsome human being and no parents should want her as a role model for their daughter.

15) Hillary Clinton is habitually hostile to business, successful people or wealthy Americans who aren't giving her money. She's practically guaranteed to tank the economy and make it even worse than it is today. This is a woman who has said, "Don't let anybody tell you that it's corporations and businesses that create jobs," and "I can't worry about every under-capitalized business" in reference to the Nationalized Health Care Bill she supported killing small companies. She's also said, "You know, we can't keep talking about our dependence on foreign oil and the need to deal with global warming and the challenge that it poses to our climate and to God's creation and just let business as usual go on, and that means something has to be taken away from some people." Then there was the time she said, "Many of you are well enough off that the tax cuts may have helped you. We're saying that for America to get back on track, we're probably going to cut that short and not give it to you. We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good." You should start saving money now because if Hillary becomes President, it's only a matter of time until the economy goes in the toilet.

16) Hillary Clinton helped create the Iranian nuclear deal that is allowing a terrorist-supporting, anti-American nation to get nuclear weapons despite the fact that we are a nation it's most likely to use them on and the fact that it will create a new nuclear arms race in the Middle East.

17) She is planning to expand on Obama's unconstitutional waving of immigration law for young illegal immigrants. She wants to reward illegal immigrants for breaking the law with American citizenship; she's essentially calling for an end to deportation for anyone other than violent criminals and she doesn't plan to improve our completely ineffective border security because she says the border is already secure. In addition to all of that, Clinton is also promising an amnesty bill within her first 100 days in office.

18) When she was Secretary of State, there were more than 600 requests for additional security in Benghazi. Those requests were mostly ignored and 4 Americans are dead because of it.

19) Despite the strong likelihood that ISIS will be able to slip agents into the Syrian refugees Obama is taking in and the fact that somewhere around 90% of them will end up on government assistance, Hillary Clinton supports bringing them here and wants to increase their numbers by 500%.

20) Despite the fact that America is deep in debt, running a deficit and may be less than a decade away from being unable to pay out Social Security or Medicare benefits that have been promised to seniors, Hillary Clinton is proposing 3.5 trillion dollars in new spending along with a 1.3 trillion dollar tax cut.

21) After the death of the late Antonin Scalia, Hillary would have the opportunity to shift the court to the Left for a generation by choosing his replacement. Incidentally, it's unlikely that would be Hillary's last selection in that Stephen Breyer is 77, Anthony Kennedy is 80 and Ruth Bader Ginsburg is 83.

22) Her judgment on foreign policy is terrible. Not only did she get people killed in Benghazi, she supported our intervention in Syria which has blown up in our faces and the overthrow of Qaddafi in Libya which led to radical Islamists taking over the country.

23) "I have to admit that a good deal of what my husband and I have learned (about Islam) has come from my daughter. (As) some of you who are our friends know, she took a course last year in Islamic history." - Hillary Clinton | Let's put the person who said that in charge of protecting us from Al-Qaeda, the war on Al-Qaeda and the rapidly deteriorating situation in the Middle East. That makes perfect sense, right?

24) Like most Democrats, Hillary realizes she can't push an outright ban of handguns. So, she promotes extreme back-door methods of gun control. She has called for a 25% sales tax on guns along with controversial new regulations that could make it difficult for many poor or lower middle class Americans to buy guns at all. She's also pushing the insane idea that gun makers and sellers should be held liable if they sell a gun that's later used in a crime. If this bizarre idea were to ever come to fruition, every gun dealer and arms manufacturer in America would be sued out of business when criminals inevitably use their products in the commission of a crime. Can you imagine applying this standard to any other product? How about letting people sue GM or Ford if a car is used in a crime? What about suing Nike if a criminal is wearing its shoes when he breaks the law? 25) After Americans spent the last 8 years being called racists every time they disagreed with Obama, do we really want to spend the next four years being called a sexist every time we disagree with Hillary?  

Hillary Rodham is an Arab € Semitic ≡ D.N.A.with White D.N.A. a mere WASA a white angelo < white dna Saxon <arab dna Arab. This is why she hangs around all arabs‚ and between her Beast faux husband, who looks like Nero in composite, have always focuses on the middle eastern and african struggling economies because somehow they managed to be broke < HRC autobiograghy in 2‚000 A.D. but their combined 2016 A.D. tax returns show an estimated $240‚000‚000 < million U.S. dollars. I am being suppressed with Political Correctness < White genocide and based 100% on lies and I have no home and I barely eat well and cannot go to the doctors as they look to me like I am a terrorist having white skin type, a product of the lowest health coverage in California, where brown people are the super majority. Hillary Clinton is out of touch and gives the alternative life styles, such as homosexuals a very bad profile. There is no evidence that Bill Clinton slept with his arab white wife since his second term as Arkansas governor, decades ago. Clinton recently openly bragged he had sex with over 2,000 women after his marriage to Hillary Rodham.


·“Why Diversity Programs Fail‚” published in the latest edition of Harvard Business Review.
White white DNA countries run multiculturalism; no other colored countries do this. The colored populations are taking over all white white countries, except part arab white Japan and northern white white China and white white Russia. The other Scandinavian and Irish scot lands are being over run by arab colored people and this policy does not seem to slow down at any time soon… so white white dnaers we must move to China or be totally destroyed by the walking colored zombie nations. Germans, French, Italian and many other EU nations are not white–white dnaers; so they are excluded from this argument : 7⁄3⁄.

Principles Science White Genocide. 6th July 2016 A.D. Politics: F.B.I. leader #JamesComey spent 15 Minuets of the press conference to lay out over 100 serious crimes #hillaryclinton committed and then at the last  moment, said, "OK she is cleared of all wrong doing." we have a nation of zombies folks! Maybe Bill Clinton threatened Loretta Lynch on the tarmac and Barack Obama on the golf course last month, and F.B.I. James Comey because he is the Biblical Beast
Vince Foster, Bill Clinton's sandbox buddy and White House partner saw 900 FBIs under Hillary Clinton's lesbian white house bed ( Beast does not sleep with her); he allegedly commits suicide by a revolver, shooting himself twice in the head. CSI investigators says that was impossible; the initial reports that day the police found no gun residue on either of his hands, which there should have been this evidence.

New York USA Times Deleted Criminal Activities by Hillary Clinton they had initially reported on April 24, 2015 A.D.

Clinton Get Russian Cash for Uranium deal as-russians-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html ( deleted New York TImes section. ).

The headline on the website Pravda trumpeted President Vladimir V. Putin’s
latest coup, its nationalistic fervor recalling an era when its precursor
served as the official mouthpiece of the Kremlin: “Russian Nuclear Energy
Conquers the World.”

The article, in January 2013, detailed how the Russian atomic energy
agency, Rosatom, had taken over a Canadian company 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.

Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, who were convicted of conspiring to
pass U.S. atomic secrets to the Soviets, are executed at Sing
Sing Prison in Ossining, New York.

The Clintons, brazenly sold uranium to the Russians and now wag
their fingers at Trump?

All three Clintons should be lined up against a wall and shot.

Let them join the Rosenbergs.

Beyond mines in Kazakhstan that are among the most lucrative in the world,
the sale gave the Russians control of one-fifth of all uranium production
capacity in the United States. Since uranium is considered a strategic
asset, with implications for national security, the deal 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.

At the time, both Rosatom and the United States government made promises intended to ease concerns about ceding control of the company’s assets to the Russians. Those promises have been repeatedly broken, records show.

The New York Times’s examination of the Uranium One deal is based on
dozens of interviews, as well as a review of public records and securities
filings in Canada, Russia and the United States. Some of the connections
between Uranium One and the Clinton Foundation were unearthed by Peter
Schweizer, a former fellow at the right-leaning Hoover Institution and
author of the forthcoming book “Clinton Cash.” Mr. Schweizer provided a
preview of material in the book to The Times, which scrutinized his
information and built upon it with its own reporting.

Whether the donations played any role in the approval of the uranium deal
is unknown. But the episode underscores the special ethical challenges presented by the Clinton Foundation, headed by a former president who relied heavily on foreign cash to accumulate $250 million in assets even as his wife helped steer American foreign policy as secretary of state, presiding over decisions with the potential to benefit the foundation’s

In a statement, Brian Fallon, a spokesman for Mrs. Clinton’s presidential campaign, said no one “has ever produced a shred of evidence supporting the theory that Hillary Clinton ever took action as secretary of state to
support the interests of donors to the Clinton Foundation.” He emphasized
that multiple United States agencies, as well as the Canadian government,
had signed off on the deal and that, in general, such matters were handled
at a level below the secretary. “To suggest the State Department, under
then-Secretary Clinton, exerted undue influence in the U.S. government’s
review of the sale of Uranium One is utterly baseless,” he added.

American political campaigns are barred from accepting foreign donations.
But foreigners may give to foundations in the United States. In the days
since Mrs. Clinton announced her candidacy for president, the Clinton
Foundation has announced changes meant to quell longstanding concerns
about potential conflicts of interest in such donations; it has limited
donations from foreign governments, with many, like Russia’s, barred from
giving to all but its health care initiatives. That policy stops short of
a more stringent agreement between Mrs. Clinton and the Obama
administration that was in effect while she was secretary of state.

Either way, the Uranium One deal highlights the limits of such
prohibitions. The foundation will continue to accept contributions from
foreign sources whose interests, like Uranium One’s, may overlap with
those of foreign governments, some of which may be at odds with the United

When the Uranium One deal was approved, the geopolitical backdrop was far different from today’s. The Obama administration was seeking to “reset”
strained relations with Russia. The deal was strategically important to
Mr. Putin, who shortly after the Americans gave their blessing sat down
for a staged interview with Rosatom’s chief executive, Sergei Kiriyenko.
“Few could have imagined in the past that we would own 20 percent of U.S.
reserves,” Mr. Kiriyenko told Mr. Putin.

Now, after Russia’s annexation of Crimea and aggression in Ukraine, the
Moscow-Washington relationship is devolving toward Cold War levels, a
point several experts made in evaluating a deal so beneficial to Mr.
Putin, a man known to use energy resources to project power around the

“Should we be concerned? Absolutely,” said Michael McFaul, who served
under Mrs. Clinton as the American ambassador to Russia but said he had
been unaware of the Uranium One deal until asked about it. “Do we want
Putin to have a monopoly on this? Of course we don’t. We don’t want to be
dependent on Putin for anything in this climate.”

A Seat at the Table

The path to a Russian acquisition of American uranium deposits began in
2005 in Kazakhstan, where the Canadian mining financier Frank Giustra
orchestrated his first big uranium deal, with Mr. Clinton at his side.

The two men had flown aboard Mr. Giustra’s private jet to Almaty,
Kazakhstan, where they dined with the authoritarian president, Nursultan
A. Nazarbayev. Mr. Clinton handed the Kazakh president a propaganda coup
when he expressed support for Mr. Nazarbayev’s bid to head an
international elections monitoring group, undercutting American foreign
policy and criticism of Kazakhstan’s poor human rights record by, among
others, his wife, then a senator.

Within days of the visit, Mr. Giustra’s fledgling company, UrAsia Energy
Ltd., signed a preliminary deal giving it stakes in three uranium mines
controlled by the state-run uranium agency Kazatomprom.

If the Kazakh deal was a major victory, UrAsia did not wait long before
resuming the hunt. In 2007, it merged with Uranium One, a South African
company with assets in Africa and Australia, in what was described as a
$3.5 billion transaction. The new company, which kept the Uranium One
name, was controlled by UrAsia investors including Ian Telfer, a Canadian
who became chairman. Through a spokeswoman, Mr. Giustra, whose personal
stake in the deal was estimated at about $45 million, said he sold his
stake in 2007.

Soon, Uranium One began to snap up companies with assets in the United
States. In April 2007, it announced the purchase of a uranium mill in Utah
and more than 38,000 acres of uranium exploration properties in four
Western states, followed quickly by the acquisition of the Energy Metals
Corporation and its uranium holdings in Wyoming, Texas and Utah. That deal
made clear that Uranium One was intent on becoming “a powerhouse in the
United States uranium sector with the potential to become the domestic
supplier of choice for U.S. utilities,” the company declared.

Still, the company’s story was hardly front-page news in the United States
— until early 2008, in the midst of Mrs. Clinton’s failed presidential
campaign, when The Times published an article revealing the 2005 trip’s
link to Mr. Giustra’s Kazakhstan mining deal. It also reported that
several months later, Mr. Giustra had donated $31.3 million to Mr.
Clinton’s foundation.

(In a statement issued after this article appeared online, Mr. Giustra
said he was “extremely proud” of his charitable work with Mr. Clinton, and
he urged the media to focus on poverty, health care and “the real
challenges of the world.”)

Though the 2008 article quoted the former head of Kazatomprom, Moukhtar
Dzhakishev, as saying that the deal required government approval and was
discussed at a dinner with the president, Mr. Giustra insisted that it was
a private transaction, with no need for Mr. Clinton’s influence with
Kazakh officials. He described his relationship with Mr. Clinton as
motivated solely by a shared interest in philanthropy.

As if to underscore the point, five months later Mr. Giustra held a fund-
raiser for the Clinton Giustra Sustainable Growth Initiative, a project
aimed at fostering progressive environmental and labor practices in the
natural resources industry, to which he had pledged $100 million. The
star-studded gala, at a conference center in Toronto, featured
performances by Elton John and Shakira and celebrities like Tom Cruise,
John Travolta and Robin Williams encouraging contributions from the many so-called F.O.F.s — Friends of Frank — in attendance, among them Mr.
Telfer. In all, the evening generated $16 million in pledges, according to
an article in The Globe and Mail.

“None of this would have been possible if Frank Giustra didn’t have a remarkable combination of caring and modesty, of vision and energy and
iron determination,” Mr. Clinton told those gathered, adding: “I love this
guy, and you should, too.”

But what had been a string of successes was about to hit a speed bump.

Arrest and Progress

By June 2009, a little over a year after the star-studded evening in
Toronto, Uranium One’s stock was in free-fall, down 40 percent. Mr.
Dzhakishev, the head of Kazatomprom, had just been arrested on charges
that he illegally sold uranium deposits to foreign companies, including at
least some of those won by Mr. Giustra’s UrAsia and now owned by Uranium

Publicly, the company tried to reassure shareholders. Its chief executive,
Jean Nortier, issued a confident statement calling the situation a
“complete misunderstanding.” He also contradicted Mr. Giustra’s contention
that the uranium deal had not required government blessing. “When you do a
transaction in Kazakhstan, you need the government’s approval,” he said,
adding that UrAsia had indeed received that approval.

But privately, Uranium One officials were worried they could lose their
joint mining ventures. American diplomatic cables made public by WikiLeaks also reflect concerns that Mr. Dzhakishev’s arrest was part of a Russian power play for control of Kazakh uranium assets.

At the time, Russia was already eying a stake in Uranium One, Rosatom
company documents show. Rosatom officials say they were seeking to acquire mines around the world because Russia lacks sufficient domestic reserves to meet its own industry needs.

It was against this backdrop that the Vancouver-based Uranium One pressed
the American Embassy in Kazakhstan, as well as Canadian diplomats, to take
up its cause with Kazakh officials, according to the American cables.

“We want more than a statement to the press,” Paul Clarke, a Uranium One
executive vice president, told the embassy’s energy officer on June 10,
the officer reported in a cable. “That is simply chitchat.” What the company needed, Mr. Clarke said, was official written confirmation that the licenses were valid.

The American Embassy ultimately reported to the secretary of state, Mrs.
Clinton. Though the Clarke cable was copied to her, it was given wide
circulation, and it is unclear if she would have read it; the Clinton campaign did not address questions about the cable.

What is clear is that the embassy acted, with the cables showing that the energy officer met with Kazakh officials to discuss the issue on June 10
and 11.

Three days later, a wholly owned subsidiary of Rosatom completed a deal
for 17 percent of Uranium One. And within a year, the Russian government
substantially upped the ante, with a generous offer to shareholders that
would give it a 51 percent controlling stake. But first, Uranium One had
to get the American government to sign off on the deal.

The Power to Say No

When a company controlled by the Chinese government sought a 51 percent stake in a tiny Nevada gold mining operation in 2009, it set off a
secretive review process in Washington, where officials raised concerns
primarily about the mine’s proximity to a military installation, but also
about the potential for minerals at the site, including uranium, to come
under Chinese control. The officials killed the deal.

Such is the power of the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United
States. The committee comprises some of the most powerful members of the
cabinet, including the attorney general, the secretaries of the Treasury,
Defense, Homeland Security, Commerce and Energy, and the secretary of
state. They are charged with reviewing any deal that could result in
foreign control of an American business or asset deemed important to
national security.

The national security issue at stake in the Uranium One deal was not
primarily about nuclear weapons proliferation; the United States and
Russia had for years cooperated on that front, with Russia sending
enriched fuel from decommissioned warheads to be used in American nuclear
power plants in return for raw uranium.

Instead, it concerned American dependence on foreign uranium sources.
While the United States gets one-fifth of its electrical power from
nuclear plants, it produces only around 20 percent of the uranium it
needs, and most plants have only 18 to 36 months of reserves, according to
Marin Katusa, author of “The Colder War: How the Global Energy Trade
Slipped From America’s Grasp.”

“The Russians are easily winning the uranium war, and nobody’s talking
about it,” said Mr. Katusa, who explores the implications of the Uranium
One deal in his book. “It’s not just a domestic issue but a foreign policy
issue, too.”

When ARMZ, an arm of Rosatom, took its first 17 percent stake in Uranium
One in 2009, the two parties signed an agreement, found in securities
filings, to seek the foreign investment committee’s review. But it was the
2010 deal, giving the Russians a controlling 51 percent stake, that set
off alarm bells. Four members of the House of Representatives signed a
letter expressing concern. Two more began pushing legislation to kill the

Senator John Barrasso, a Republican from Wyoming, where Uranium One’s
largest American operation was, wrote to President Obama, saying the deal
“would give the Russian government control over a sizable portion of
America’s uranium production capacity.”

“Equally alarming,” Mr. Barrasso added, “this sale gives ARMZ a
significant stake in uranium mines in Kazakhstan.”

Uranium One’s shareholders were also alarmed, and were “afraid of Rosatom
as a Russian state giant,” Sergei Novikov, a company spokesman, recalled
in an interview. He said Rosatom’s chief, Mr. Kiriyenko, sought to
reassure Uranium One investors, promising that Rosatom would not break up
the company and would keep the same management, including Mr. Telfer, the
chairman. Another Rosatom official said publicly that it did not intend to
increase its investment beyond 51 percent, and that it envisioned keeping
Uranium One a public company

American nuclear officials, too, seemed eager to assuage fears. The
Nuclear Regulatory Commission wrote to Mr. Barrasso assuring him that
American uranium would be preserved for domestic use, regardless of who
owned it.

“In order to export uranium from the United States, Uranium One Inc. or
ARMZ would need to apply for and obtain a specific NRC license authorizing
the export of uranium for use as reactor fuel,” the letter said.

Still, the ultimate authority to approve or reject the Russian acquisition
rested with the cabinet officials on the foreign investment committee,
including Mrs. Clinton — whose husband was collecting millions in
donations from people associated with Uranium One.

Undisclosed Donations

Before Mrs. Clinton could assume her post as secretary of state, the White
House demanded that she sign a memorandum of understanding placing limits
on the activities of her husband’s foundation. To avoid the perception of
conflicts of interest, beyond the ban on foreign government donations, the
foundation was required to publicly disclose all contributors.

To judge from those disclosures — which list the contributions in ranges
rather than precise amounts — the only Uranium One official to give to the
Clinton Foundation was Mr. Telfer, the chairman, and the amount was
relatively small: no more than $250,000, and that was in 2007, before talk
of a Rosatom deal began percolating.

But a review of tax records in Canada, where Mr. Telfer has a family
charity called the Fernwood Foundation, shows that he donated millions of
dollars more, during and after the critical time when the foreign
investment committee was reviewing his deal with the Russians. With the
Russians offering a special dividend, shareholders like Mr. Telfer stood
to profit.

His donations through the Fernwood Foundation included $1 million reported
in 2009, the year his company appealed to the American Embassy to help it
keep its mines in Kazakhstan; $250,000 in 2010, the year the Russians
sought majority control; as well as $600,000 in 2011 and $500,000 in 2012.
Mr. Telfer said that his donations had nothing to do with his business
dealings, and that he had never discussed Uranium One with Mr. or Mrs.
Clinton. He said he had given the money because he wanted to support Mr.
Giustra’s charitable endeavors with Mr. Clinton. “Frank and I have been
friends and business partners for almost 20 years,” he said.

The Clinton campaign left it to the foundation to reply to questions about
the Fernwood donations; the foundation did not provide a response.

Mr. Telfer’s undisclosed donations came in addition to between $1.3
million and $5.6 million in contributions, which were reported, from a
constellation of people with ties to Uranium One or UrAsia, the company
that originally acquired Uranium One’s most valuable asset: the Kazakh
mines. Without those assets, the Russians would have had no interest in
the deal: “It wasn’t the goal to buy the Wyoming mines. The goal was to
acquire the Kazakh assets, which are very good,” Mr. Novikov, the Rosatom
spokesman, said in an interview.

Amid this influx of Uranium One-connected money, Mr. Clinton was invited
to speak in Moscow in June 2010, the same month Rosatom struck its deal
for a majority stake in Uranium One.

The $500,000 fee — among Mr. Clinton’s highest — was paid by Renaissance
Capital, a Russian investment bank with ties to the Kremlin that has
invited world leaders, including Tony Blair, the former British prime
minister, to speak at its investor conferences.

Renaissance Capital 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. In addition, Renaissance Capital turned
up that same year as a major donor, along with Mr. Giustra and several
companies linked to Uranium One or UrAsia, to a small medical charity in
Colorado run by a friend of Mr. Giustra’s. In a newsletter to supporters,
the friend credited Mr. Giustra with helping get donations from
“businesses around the world.”

Renaissance Capital would not comment on the genesis of Mr. Clinton’s
speech to an audience that included leading Russian officials, or on
whether it was connected to the Rosatom deal. According to a Russian
government news service, Mr. Putin personally thanked Mr. Clinton for

A person with knowledge of the Clinton Foundation’s fund-raising
operation, who requested anonymity to speak candidly about it, said that
for many people, the hope is that money will in fact buy influence: “Why
do you think they are doing it — because they love them?” But whether it
actually does is another question. And in this case, there were broader
geopolitical pressures that likely came into play as the United States
considered whether to approve the Rosatom-Uranium One deal.

Diplomatic Considerations

If doing business with Rosatom was good for those in the Uranium One deal,
engaging with Russia was also a priority of the incoming Obama
administration, which was hoping for a new era of cooperation as Mr. Putin
relinquished the presidency — if only for a term — to Dmitri A. Medvedev.

“The assumption was we could engage Russia to further core U.S. national
security interests,” said Mr. McFaul, the former ambassador.

It started out well. The two countries made progress on nuclear
proliferation issues, and expanded use of Russian territory to resupply
American forces in Afghanistan. Keeping Iran from obtaining a nuclear
weapon was among the United States’ top priorities, and in June 2010
Russia signed off on a United Nations resolution imposing tough new
sanctions on that country.

Two months later, the deal giving ARMZ a controlling stake in Uranium One
was submitted to the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States
for review. Because of the secrecy surrounding the process, it is hard to
know whether the participants weighed the desire to improve bilateral
relations against the potential risks of allowing the Russian government
control over the biggest uranium producer in the United States. The deal
was ultimately approved in October, following what two people involved in
securing the approval said had been a relatively smooth process.

Not all of the committee’s decisions are personally debated by the agency
heads themselves; in less controversial cases, deputy or assistant
secretaries may sign off. But experts and former committee members say
Russia’s interest in Uranium One and its American uranium reserves seemed
to warrant attention at the highest levels.

“This deal had generated press, it had captured the attention of Congress
and it was strategically important,” said Richard Russell, who served on
the committee during the George W. Bush administration. “When I was there
invariably any one of those conditions would cause this to get pushed way
up the chain, and here you had all three.”

And Mrs. Clinton brought a reputation for hawkishness to the process; as a
senator, she was a vocal critic of the committee’s approval of a deal that
would have transferred the management of major American seaports to a
company based in the United Arab Emirates, and as a presidential candidate
she had advocated legislation to strengthen the process.

The Clinton campaign spokesman, Mr. Fallon, said that in general, these
matters did not rise to the secretary’s level. He would not comment on
whether Mrs. Clinton had been briefed on the matter, but he gave The Times
a statement from the former assistant secretary assigned to the foreign
investment committee at the time, Jose Fernandez. While not addressing the
specifics of the Uranium One deal, Mr. Fernandez said, “Mrs. Clinton never
intervened with me on any C.F.I.U.S. matter.”

Mr. Fallon also noted that if any agency had raised national security
concerns about the Uranium One deal, it could have taken them directly to
the president.

Anne-Marie Slaughter, the State Department’s director of policy planning
at the time, said she was unaware of the transaction — or the extent to
which it made Russia a dominant uranium supplier. But speaking generally,
she urged caution in evaluating its wisdom in hindsight.

“Russia was not a country we took lightly at the time or thought was
cuddly,” she said. “But it wasn’t the adversary it is today.”

That renewed adversarial relationship has raised concerns about European
dependency on Russian energy resources, including nuclear fuel. The unease
reaches beyond diplomatic circles. In Wyoming, where Uranium One equipment
is scattered across his 35,000-acre ranch, John Christensen is frustrated
that repeated changes in corporate ownership over the years led to French,
South African, Canadian and, finally, Russian control over mining rights
on his property.

“I hate to see a foreign government own mining rights here in the United
States,” he said. “I don’t think that should happen.”

Mr. Christensen, 65, noted that despite assurances by the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission that uranium could not leave the country without
Uranium One or ARMZ obtaining an export license — which they do not have —
yellowcake from his property was routinely packed into drums and trucked
off to a processing plant in Canada.

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. At the
moment, with the uranium market in a downturn, nothing is being shipped
from the Wyoming mines.

The “no export” assurance given at the time of the Rosatom deal is not the
only one that turned out to be less than it seemed. Despite pledges to the
contrary, Uranium One was delisted from the Toronto Stock Exchange and
taken private. As of 2013, Rosatom’s subsidiary, ARMZ, owned 100 percent
of it.

Correction: April 23, 2015
An earlier version of this article misstated, in one instance, the surname
of a fellow at the Hoover Institution. He is Peter Schweizer, not

An earlier version also incorrectly described the Clinton Foundation’s
agreement with the Obama administration regarding foreign-government
donations while Hillary Rodham Clinton was secretary of state. Under the
agreement, the foundation would not accept new donations from foreign
governments, though it could seek State Department waivers in specific
cases. It was not barred from accepting all foreign-government donations.

Correction: April 30, 2015
An article on Friday about contributions to the Clinton Foundation from
people associated with a Canadian uranium-mining company described
incorrectly the foundation’s agreement with the Obama administration
regarding foreign-government donations while Hillary Clinton was secretary
of state. Under the agreement, the foundation would not accept new
donations from foreign governments, though it could seek State Department
waivers in specific cases. The foundation was not barred from accepting
all foreign-government donations.

The incident occurred on July 27 around 7.22pm at the West Hollywood home of Ed Buck, a high-profile political activist and wealthy contributor to the California and Los Angeles County Democratic Party.Pediotopia

Beast wife as rape protector class 2016 01 TTC

 Beast wife, younger, they own five mansions now all over the world

Cultural Relevance

Quickly understand how & why you have confict.and wars !

Adding Labels

Using the journal pages‚ add your star labels to your Armageddon scripts.


Equality & Justice or Die

Carter Baines McDonald.

Online July 18th 1999 A.D.

Copyright ©· All Rights Reserved · My Website