• Here they are: Hillary's 23 biggest scandals ever - 23) Selling uranium

    From edell@post.com@21:1/5 to All on Wed Mar 6 07:54:05 2019
    XPost: alt.startrek, alt.internet.search-engines, alt.fan.states.utah
    XPost: alt.fan.states.west-virginia

    Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation Amid Russian Uranium Deal

    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.

    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 donors.

    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 States.

    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.

    https://static01.nyt.com/images/2015/04/23/us/clinton-foundation- donations-uranium-investors-1429749669022/clinton-foundation- donations-uranium-investors-1429749669022-master495-v3.png

    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 world.

    “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

    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

    (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

    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 One.

    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

    “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 deal.

    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

    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 speaking.

    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

    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 Schweitzer.

    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.

    Among the Donors to the Clinton Foundation
    Frank Giustra
    $31.3 million and a pledge for $100 million more
    He built a company that later merged with Uranium One.
    Ian Telfer
    $2.35 million
    Mining investor who was chairman of Uranium One when an arm of
    the Russian government, Rosatom, acquired it.
    Paul Reynolds
    $1 million to $5 million
    Adviser on 2007 UrAsia-Uranium One merger. Later helped raise
    $260 million for the company.
    Frank Holmes
    $250,000 to $500,000
    Chief Executive of U.S. Global Investors Inc., which held $4.7
    million in Uranium One shares in the first quarter of 2011.
    Neil Woodyer
    $50,000 to $100,000
    Adviser to Uranium One. Founded Endeavour Mining with Mr.
    GMP Securities Ltd.
    Donating portion of profits
    Worked on debt issue that raised $260 million for Uranium One.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton- foundation-as-russians-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-

    Barack Hussein Obama and his FBI directer Robert Mueller knew
    about this crime and both blessed it...

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)