First, some background is needed.
From Wikipedia
***
Frank Giustra donated $31.3 million to the Clinton Foundation, to be followed in 2007 with a pledge of at least $100 million.
...
Since uranium is considered a strategic asset with national security implications and Uranium One owned uranium mining operations in the United States, the acquisition of Uranium One by Rosatom was reviewed by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS), a committee of nine government cabinet departments and agencies including the United States Department of State, which was then headed by Hillary Clinton.
...
On June 29, 2010, Renaissance Capital, a Russian investment bank with ties to the Kremlin and which was promoting Uranium One stock, paid Bill Clinton $500,000 for a speech in Moscow shortly after the Rosatom acquisition of Uranium One was announced.
***
.
Sounds sketchy as hell, right? Yet FactCheck.org reports this:
***
It may be that individuals and companies sought to curry favor with Hillary Clinton and even influence her department’s decision on the Uranium One sale. But, as we’ve written before, there is no evidence that donations to the Clinton Foundation from people with ties to Uranium One or Bill Clinton’s speaking fee influenced Hillary Clinton’s official actions.
***
Oh, blow me, you shameless political prostitutes. What a miserable heap of weasel words.
And then there's this gem from Len Bilen's beautiful blog:
***
Uranium is the feed-stock for nuclear power. It is also the material necessary to make nuclear bombs and making isotopes for medicinal and industrial uses.
The United States has 245,000 tons of Uranium reserves recoverable at less than $100 per kilogram, 1.9% of the world total. The price of uranium oxide is today about $80 per kilogram. This is about 12.5 years worth of domestic production, and as the great conservationist Sarah Palin used to quip, “when it is gone, it’s gone.”
The United States has, as of 2019, mined 444,500 tons of Uranium, or about 13% of the world total.
The United States consumed in 2019 19,570 tons of Uranium, about 23% of the world total, about 99.6% of which was imported. This is a great strategic vulnerability.
Which brings up the following question: Why did the Obama administration sell 20% of our proven reserves of this strategically important material to Russia?
It is of utmost importance to immediately restart the development of nuclear reactors that use Thorium as its feed-stock. Uranium based nuclear power can never fill our long term energy needs
***
Why, indeed. Turning to a "fact check" from The McPaper of Record:
***
It's true that Joe Biden leveraged $1 billion in aid to persuade Ukraine to oust its top prosecutor, Viktor Shokin, in March 2016. But it wasn't because Shokin was investigating Burisma. It was because Shokin wasn't pursuing corruption among the country's politicians.
***
And who was on the board of Burisma at that time? That's right, Joe Biden's crackhead son, Hunter Biden.
You know what would be a great way to cover all this up? A war between Russia and Ukraine. The demonization of Russia by US media serves to distract from the crooked deals the Clintons made under the auspices of Obama and Biden. It also distracts from the incompetence of Obama's diplomacy. 'Member Hillary's mistranslated reset button? I 'member. Meanwhile, the Ukrainians are too busy fighting the war to do any of their own investigating. It's the political equivalent of Dale Gribble yelling "pocket sand!" as he throws a handful in the eyes of his enemy and flees.
Hillary blaming her 2016 loss on Russia also fits into this. How could she be dealing with Russians when they were fighting tooth and nail to sabotage her rightful ascension to the iron throne?
And then there's this:
***
On October 7, 2016, the United States Department of Homeland Security and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence stated that the US intelligence community was "confident" that the Russian government directed the breaches and the release of the obtained or allegedly obtained material in an attempt to "... interfere with the US election process."
...
On October 7, 2016, one month before the United States presidential election, The Washington Post published a video and accompanying article about then-presidential candidate Donald Trump and television host Billy Bush having "an extremely lewd conversation about women" in September 2005.
***
The. same. fucking. day. Timing like this is not coincidental. The first story was meant to discredit emails leaked a few months prior and the second story was meant to establish the new narrative before amplifying it.
That day was a Friday, the traditional day for dumping news.
From PoliticalDictionary.com:
***
Releasing bad news or documents on a Friday afternoon in an attempt to avoid media scrutiny is often called a “Friday news dump” by members of the media.
This timing is often chosen strategically, aiming to minimize media coverage, public attention, and potential scrutiny that may arise from the news being released.
Often, the White House sets the release of bad news and unflattering documents to late Friday afternoon. The Pentagon and other agencies also use the practice, a legacy of earlier administrations.
Various types of information can be subject to a Friday news dump, including policy changes, government reports, legal documents, internal memos, or even personal disclosures.
This tactic has been employed by politicians, government agencies, corporations, or other entities seeking to manage the timing and perception of significant news developments.
***
No comments:
Post a Comment