Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 51 Next »

oflguy

Profile Information

Member since: Sat Jul 2, 2016, 05:31 PM
Number of posts: 8,818

Journal Archives

Report reveals that corporate tax cuts will result in increased taxes on the middle class

Since they will be making more money

Trump caught destroying incriminating evidence

Oh, wait, that was Hillary.

nevermind

Trump should fire Sessions

He is a failure.

Trump caught destroying evidence that incriminates him

Oh, wait, that was Hillary.

Nevermind

Just another day in the lives of the Clintons

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.

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.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-foundation-as-russians-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html?_r=0

This is outrageous. It amounts to the government using taxpayer money as hush money

Dem lawmaker says House paid out $15M in harassment settlements

Rep. Jackie Speier (D-Calif.) said Tuesday that the House has paid out $15 million in harassment settlements over more than a decade, though a spokesperson later clarified that figure does not only account for sexual harassment claims.

“One member of Congress has settled a claim and there has been a taxpayer settlement,” Speier told Chuck Todd on MSNBC's "MTP Daily."

“We do know that there’s about $15 million that has been paid out by the House on behalf of harassers in the last 10 to 15 years," she added.

A spokesperson for Speier later clarified to The Hill that the $15 million figure provided by the Office of Compliance (OOC) applied to all types of complaints handled by the office in the fiscal period between 1997 and 2016. These include not just complaints relating to sexual harassment, but also to complaints regarding racial and religious discrimination, as well as discrimination against people with disabilities, according to the spokesperson.

"The OOC does not currently provide any breakdown for the type of discrimination payments made, the amounts of individual payments, or even the offices that the complaints generate from," the spokesperson said in a statement.

The Office of Compliance (OOC) is responsible for handling sexual harassment complaints and settlements. Once a settlement is reached, the money does not come from individual members' offices but is instead paid out of a special fund operated by the Treasury Department.

Speier’s comments come amid increased reports of sexual harassment in the workplace, including on Capitol Hill. Multiple female members of Congress have come forward saying they have been victims of sexual harassment, prompting lawmakers to call for reform.

Sources in the office told CNN that while the OOC does compile a report on the number of awards and settlements paid out of the fund each year, it is not broken down by settlement type — meaning sexual harassment settlements are lumped in with other workplace cases like back pay and compensatory damages for monetary reporting.

A congressional aide told CNN that the Treasury Department has paid out $15 million in total settlements since 1997, but it was unclear how much of that money had been paid in sexual harassment cases.

Rep. Bradley Byrne (R-Ala.), who practiced employment law before serving in the House, recommended in testimony before the House Administration Committee on Tuesday that lawmakers accused of harassment should personally repay the Treasury for settlements.

http://thehill.com/homenews/house/360398-jackie-speier-the-house-has-paid-out-15-million-on-behalf-of-sexual-harassers

Makes me wonder

Lefty seems to be very comfortable with giving Russia 20% of our uranium reserves.

Would you be comfortable giving Russia 50% of our uranium? 75% ??

Out of curiosity, what is your threshold of comfort when giving our uranium to Russia?

Keep in mind, we must import uranium, so we don't have enough for ourselves.

Sometimes we never know where wisdom lies

Homeland Security warns drones could be used in terrorist attacks

WASHINGTON -- CBS News has learned that the Department of Homeland Security has sent an intelligence assessment to police agencies across the country about drones being used as weapons in an attack.
The bulletin went out Friday and warned that unmanned aircraft systems or drones could be used in the U.S. to advance terrorist and criminal activities. Law enforcement sources say, "emerging adversary use of Unmanned Aircraft Systems present detection and disruption challenges."

According to federal officials, "The rising trend in UAS incidents within the National Airspace System will continue, as UAS gain wider appeal with recreational users and commercial applications."

The bulletin goes on to say, "while many of these encounters are not malicious in nature, they underscore potential security vulnerabilities... that could be used by adversaries to leverage UAS as part of an attack."
Currently, intelligence bulletins are released almost weekly as law enforcement responds to threats from ISIS sympathizers. But the release of a bulletin dedicated to the threat from UAS is unusual. The bulletin does not mention any specific upcoming events authorities are concerned about but points to the overall security challenges drones present.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/homeland-security-warns-drones-could-be-used-in-attacks/

Trump's Asian trip is very productive

Trump has been scoring diplomatic goals, especially in Asia where Obama is from.

Good job, Donald.
Go to Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 51 Next »