Skip to main content

MSM Has Proved, Not Debunked, Clinton Links In The Uranium One






1. CONFIRMED by the New York Times: The former head of Russia’s uranium company (Ian Telfer) made four hidden donations to the Clinton Foundation totaling $2.35 million.
As the New York Times has confirmed: “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.” 
2. CONFIRMED by the New Yorker magazine: Bill Clinton bagged a $500,000 speech in Moscow paid for by a Kremlin-backed bank.
The New Yorker confirmed that Bill Clinton received $500,000 for a Moscow speech paid for by “a Russian investment bank that had ties to the Kremlin.”
“Why was Bill Clinton taking any money from a bank linked to the Kremlin while his wife was Secretary of State?” asked the New Yorker.
Similarly, the New York Times has confirmed that: “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.
3. CONFIRMED by the New York Times: Despite claims to the contrary, Uranium One has, in fact, exported “yellowcake” out of America and is “routinely packed into drums and trucked off to a processing plant in Canada.”
The New York Timesconfirmed that: “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.”
4. CONFIRMED by The Hill: The FBI has uncovered “substantial evidence that Russian nuclear industry officials were engaged in bribery, kickbacks, extortion and money laundering.”
The Hill confirmed last week that the FBI has uncovered “substantial evidence that Russian nuclear industry officials were engaged in bribery, kickbacks, extortion and money laundering.”
5. CONFIRMED by CNBC: Clinton Foundation mega-donor Frank Holmes claimed he sold Uranium One before Hillary Clinton’s State Department approved the Russian transfer—but his company’s own SEC filings prove otherwise. 
On CNBC, Clinton mega donor and uranium executive Frank Holmes claimed he sold his Uranium One stock before Hillary Clinton’s State Dept. approved the transfer of 20% of all U.S. uranium to Putin’s Russia in 2010. Yet  according to his company’s (U.S. Global Investors), own 2011 SEC filing, Holmes’ company still hold Uranium One stock, a point he later admitted.6. CONFIRMED by the New York Times: While eight other agencies had to sign off on approving the transfer of 20 percent of all U.S. uranium to Russia, Hillary Clinton’s State Department was the only government agency headed by an official (Hillary Clinton) whose family foundation received $145 million from foreign investors involved in the uranium deal. 
In its financial review of the uranium transaction, the New York Times confirmed that nine foreign investors in the uranium deal flowed a combined $145 million to Hillary Clinton’s family foundation. None of the remaining eight agency heads who approved the uranium transfer received foreign donations to their family’s charities.
7. CONFIRMED by The Hill: FBI agents already have an eyewitness and documents to support the most explosive parts of the Uranium One story. 
The Hill confirmed that federal agents have “obtained an eyewitness account — backed by documents — indicating Russian nuclear officials had routed millions of dollars to the U.S. designed to benefit former President Bill Clinton’s charitable foundation during the time Secretary of State Hillary Clinton served on a government body that provided a favorable decision to Moscow.
This was an excerpt from Breitbarts article:
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/10/25/7-explosive-uranium-one-facts-mainstream-media-already-confirmed/


The United States House and Senate have now launched official probes into the Uranium One scandal.

Popular posts from this blog

Dīvide et imperā: How To Defeat The Most Effective Social Control Weapon In Human History

Many different empires, cultures and nations have existed in history and while the details, styles, values and aesthetics keep changing, the core structure remains unchanged. In order to benefit from social coperation and steal reward in excess of the labour and value you invest, you cannot take it by brute  for extended periods of time without facing the wrath of the crowds. The crowds need to give it to you willingly or unknowingly. There was one exception to this synopsis, the Feudal System  but there is more to that than people realise, it's a post for a later day and deserves full scrutiny and parrellels do manifest. The support of the home crowd is also needed to win wars. No army has ever been effective fighting under duress, they would assemble, arm  and immediatly turn on you.


Before the current reigning Judeo-Christian Anglo American Empire of today there were other more monolithic empires that the loosely ideologically aligned old money banking dynasties, globalists an…

Scientific Consensus is that Consensus is overturned 100% of the time

Everything you know is wrong. There is a very good reason why science succeeds more often than politics does.  Unlike politics, It's not a consensus or a vote,  it's actually method.  The scientific method. Anyone who has read this blog before probably knows I'm a lifelong science junkie as well as someone who spends thousands of hours breaking down the the political and economic agendas behind the special interest groups that guide public policy.  In many ways I'm actually uniquely qualified to tie these angles together in ways not well understood by the overwhelming majority of people.  That actually includes scientists. Scientists are notoriously naive in the political and economic forces that drive the human world.

For example if you are of the opinion that the earth has one moon, the earth revolves around the sun etc you are already wrong. Well sort of. The politicpl world is black and white, the scientific world is nuanced, see http://dwahts.blogspot.com/2018/06…

CO2 is not a pollutant, it is greening the earth!

Whatever your persuasion is on CO² and AGW, nobody disagrees on the tremendous benefit it provides plant life. Many of the past famine disasters and desertification has CO² decline listed as a contributor.

http://dwahts.blogspot.co.za/2018/04/sheep-science.html?m=1

I feel I've already blown the notion that humans are the main cause of climate change out of the water. Or rather I've used the reasoning of others and put it together in a convenient outline. See my previous post above for starters.  However, I recognize that humans do increase CO² levels, no matter how tiny. Increases are likely to be very short lived because the earth has an effective feedback mechanism, but we can apparently get small increases, and it's been put forward on very poor science that this is a bad thing. That assertion hinges completely on bad models. More on that in the bottom most link.  Model's and the measurement sample dates are dubious at best.


Furthermore, the main increase in CO²  as…