Sometimes, you require context to understand a story. Without it, it means much less. In this case, the context comes from one of the most liberal US Media outlets, the New York Times. The New York times, however, demonstrates how the US Media lies to America by excluding damaging news, under-reporting it, or reporting it in an untimely manner.
We will provide an encapsulated version of this story first, and then present the complete story with all the references needed for those that wish to understand the entire sordid scheme.
On Oct 7, 2016, the Podesta Emails were released. The emails implicated the Clinton Campaign in many deviant acts, but the one most evident was Uranium One. Julian Assange went to a great deal of trouble laying out a road map of the story, and it appears people were so busy wading through the emails and writing story after story on every trivial matter, they missed the meat of what Julian Assange was telling them. Eventually, all the pieces to the puzzle were laid out in various disparate articles, but no one appeared to bring them together into a cohesive story.
The truly puzzling aspect is that the expert on the Uranium One deal from the outset, the New York Times, avoided the story like the plague, instead attacking Trump at every turn over minor issues and fabricating false claims against Donald Trump. The deal involves the lead man for the Clinton Campaign, John Podesta, as the corruption coordinator.
First, who is John Podesta? Julian Assange provided this brief synopsis.
“Mr Podesta is a long-term associate of the Clintons and was President Bill Clinton’s Chief of Staff from 1998 until 2001. Mr Podesta also controls the Podesta Group, a major lobbying firm and is the Chair of the Center for American Progress (CAP), a Washington DC-based think tank.”
Please take special note of CAP, a lobbying firm controlled by Mr. Podesta for later reference.
John Podesta and Clinton cronies orchestrated the sale of 1/5 of the US Production of Uranium to Russia. That’s right, Russia. This was based on the sale of a company, Uranium One, to Russia. The sale was pushed through many offices for signature faster than you can say Uranium One, and resulted in some disturbing manifestations.
Before Uranium One sold, in 2011, Podesta received a large lucrative stock option agreement from Joule Unlimited, a Putin-connected energy company. The impropriety of the agreement cannot be overstated. Podesta had been named to the board of this company solely for the purpose of transferring large sums of money into Podesta’s pockets in return for government connections in Washington. Directly before joining the Obama administration, Podesta transferred his shares to an anonymous holding company to conceal the improprieties. In doing so, Podesta has been able to conceal his sale or further participation in a Russian-connected energy company tied to the deal of Uranium One.
Podesta failed to fully disclose his position on Joule Unlimited’s board of directors and include it in his federal financial disclosures, as required by law, before he became President Obama’s senior adviser.
Podesta would later resign, in December 2013, from his board affiliations with Joule, and exercised his option agreement and redeemed 75000 common shares of the company. During the period, Podesta had ensured Russian investments that benefited Joule through CAP (mentioned above). Russia also made significant investments in Joule during the period to the tune of tens of millions of dollars, even though Joule has no product to speak of. The impropriety arises out of the insider trading implications of Podesta acting in a government role while on the board of Joule, as well as his participation in US Government dealings regarding Uranium One directly with Putin himself, his later concealment of his involvement when joining the Obama administration and his transfer of his holdings to an anonymous company fabricated to conceal transactions. The newly formed anonymous holding company just happened to have the same address as Podesta’s daughter.
This email reveals much about the Podesta deal. Apparently, an error was made by Joule in the stock option agreement with Podesta, and they had to explain the error along with the entire agreement in this email.
The insider trading involved with Joule makes the charges against Martha Stewart that placed her in prison pale in comparison, and yet no legal action has been taken against Podesta, nor has Podesta been forced to resign.
Hillary Clinton, who had the final signature on the Uranium One deal, pushed the deal through quickly. She did sign off on it, and it took about four weeks to orchestrate the final sale. Shortly after the sale was complete, the Clinton Foundation received millions in donations from the ex-CEO of Uranium One who made a very large profit selling his shares. Some may say quid pro quo, but this is illegal trading activity. Hillary was not allowed to profit from the sale. Worse, she decided to never report the millions she received from the sale. This led to the IRS audit that is still ongoing on the Clinton Foundation. Tens of millions in connected donations were also received, and because the Clinton Foundation has refused to disclose its donor list, no one is certain of the exact amount related to Uranium One, but some estimates are well over 100 million dollars. Even an IRS that goes after Tea Party Members gets miffed when a Democrat does not report millions in income.
The IRS audit was not, however, the end of the story. Congress got wind of the sale and was quite curious as to how fast the sale went through. They decided to push for an investigation. A false witness attested that he was responsible for the Uranium One Deal and stated Hillary Clinton was not involved. The tidbit that was added via the Podesta Emails that was most critical, and that many missed, was that the witness thanked Podesta in an email for the cushy new job he received as a reward for his statements and also stated he hoped his lies were successful.
To have a third government official lie about the incident to defer a Congressional investigation is crime enough. Worse, however, is the pay for play that was involved combined with the efforts of Podesta to cover up the crimes of insider trading and the illegal kickbacks to the Clinton Foundation. The emails are clear. The crony accepted the new position on the board of a Podesta affiliated organization just before he “personally attested” that Clinton had not influenced his decision on Uranium One. The rigged statement, in writing, presented by the Clinton Campaign as proof Hillary Clinton was not involved in the Uranium Affair, “Mrs. Clinton never intervened with me on any C.F.I.U.S. matter.”
That is the short story. The long story with references follows. One may want to note that this is the only series of corrupt actions in the entire release of tens of thousands of Podesta Emails that Julian Assange went to the trouble of documenting completely in this press release.
LONG STORY WITH REFERENCES
There were many Podesta email releases, but part one was the only one in which Julian Assange provided a map to this story. While much of the media picked up the more obvious emails, no one delivered the continuous thread the way Julian Assange did. Without the context of the introduction from Julian Assange, the true story about Uranium One, holding approximately 20% of US Uranium Production, would not have been clear. Two parts appear to be criminal without question. Other parts are just corruption at work.
Uranium One was a company that was sold to Russia by the US government during Hillary Clinton’s tenure as Secretary of State. Hillary Clinton had final sign-off on the sale and led the approval process with the assistance of John Podesta.
The story begins mostly based on a report by our own New York Times printed in April of 2015. The report is as follows:
This report was much more thorough and well constructed than any report that came out as a result of the Podesta Emails. It provides the context from which to make your conclusions, so it must be read and understood to garner the essential points made. The fact it comes from the New York Times, which favored Hillary Clinton throughout her campaign and endorsed Hillary Clinton defines it as non-partisan.
Despite the Obvious mentions of Uranium One in the Podesta Emails, the Times did not connect the new dots, because in the middle of the final months of the election, it did not serve them. In April, however, it is clear that the NY Times stated in their own headline that cash was poured into the Clinton Foundation amid the sale of Uranium One. The April 2015 article was precursored by an earlier article in January 2013.
The NY Times explains:
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.
The former American president mentioned is Bill Clinton. The woman that “would like to be the next President” is Hillary Clinton.
Bill Clinton enters the picture because facilitators of the sale and the related business activities had funded Bill Clinton quite well in the past, specifically during the time he was President.
Why did Uranium One end up requiring the involvement of Hillary Clinton? The NY Times stated it best.
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.
So far, this seems to be relatively innocent. Certainly it does imply that Bill Clinton, however, was involved directly in a deal that required the cooperation of our government to succeed. The fact Hillary Clinton was required to punctuate that deal implies a considerable conflict of interest, especially when forking over 1/5 of the production of US Uranium One to Russia. If there was motive evident in the sale that resulted in a financial reward to the Clintons, that defines corruption and pay for play to a T. However, there is more to this story that appears to be definitively criminal in nature. We surveyed people to determine if they believed crimes were committed in advance; no one responding felt they were not criminal.
In 2009, the deal was approved and transacted to transfer control of the company to Russia over four years. During that time, 2.35 million dollars was donated to the Clinton Foundation by the Chairman of Uranium One. Other core people tied to the sale made donations as well. That alone would be suspicious in nature, but the kicker is that Hillary Clinton did not report the income. The NY Times stated:
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.
It would be impossible to believe anyone would forget to report millions in income, and specifically those exact amounts she received as donations from the sale of Uranium One. Because she was Secretary of State when arranging the deal, the conflict of interest is obvious, but when you add in the deceit, you have all the pieces of the puzzle you need to identify it as pay for play.
If that is not enough,
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.
A cool half million for a speech from the Kremlin that the media wanted you to believe hacked the DNC. Bear in mind once again, this story is from the New York Times, along with all the research they presented to back it up.
Still, even at this juncture in the story, the Times was generous.
Whether the donations played any role in the approval of the uranium deal is unknown.
Brian Fallon, a spokesman for Mrs. Clinton’s presidential campaign, added wood to the fire, however, challenging those in the media regarding the deal, stating “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,”
This statement was an affront to those that clearly saw the connection was at the very least questionable, especially given Hillary Clinton concealed the income. Certainly, examining the donations more closely, it hardly requires any more proof that the Clintons benefited handsomely from the deal.