The Uranium One Thing Is a Non-Story and Here Is Why

 

It always amazes me how false legends get created, and soon, without any facts, they are cemented in everyone’s minds, the details get lost, and they become widely believed, even without evidence.

So it is with the Uranium One story, which is making the rounds again, thanks to a Tweet last week from the President who said, “Uranium deal to Russia, with Clinton help and Obama Administration knowledge, is the biggest story that Fake Media doesn’t want to follow!”

And so we have this false legend, already solidifying in people’s minds that Hillary Clinton sold off a large chunk of America’s uranium to Russia, probably in exchange for an enormous bribe to the Clinton Foundation. Because, when it comes to Hillary Clinton, people will believe almost anything. Look, I don’t like Hillary Clinton either, but the real stuff is bad enough, we don’t need to make up anything extra.

Now, there was a Russian bribery story involving uranium, but you have to go beyond the headlines to find the details. It involved a Russian named Vadim Mikerin. But the bribes weren’t paid by Russians to Americans, it was the other way around. Kickbacks were paid by an American trucking company to Russians get no-bid contracts to ship uranium. And the “scandal” is that the FBI allegedly kept this secret while the Uranium One deal was being approved.

So what is the Uranium One deal? It involves Willow Creek, a uranium mine in Wyoming. I keep seeing it reported (uncritically) that Willow Creek produces 20% of American uranium, but that’s not accurate. The amount varies from year to year, but in 2011-2016, Willow Creek put out less than 5% of us US domestic Uranium production capacity. And while I can’t pin it down, Willow Creek sits on something like 4% of US reserves.

However, the thing to understand is that the US doesn’t produce that much uranium. Only about 11% of the uranium delivered to American power plants is produced domestically. The rest, 89% comes from foreign sources. Who sells us uranium? A quarter of it comes from Canada, 24% from Kazakhstan, 20% from Australia, and the rest comes from a slew of other countries from Namibia to China. Oh, and we get 14% out of Russia.

Why do the Russians sell us uranium? Well, they used to sell us even more. We had a 20-year agreement that finished in 2013 known as the Megatons to Megawatts Program. The Russians sold us surplus uranium from retired nuclear weapons that had been blended down to low enrichment for use in our power plants. The truth is that they can sell us uranium because they have more of it than they’ll ever need. (I’ve heard it suggested, but couldn’t track it down, that transporting this uranium was what the Mikerin bribery deal was about.)

Okay, so the Willow Creek mine was bought by a Canadian company called Uranium One, which, like lots of other companies, ran into financial problems in 2009. At that time, Rosatom, the Russian state nuclear energy company, through a subsidiary, bought part of the company. They bought the rest in 2010.

A purchase like that requires approval from the US government, specifically something called the CFIUS as well as from the NRC, plus Canadian and Kazakh regulators. What is CFIUS? It’s the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States. It is made up of representatives from 16 US agencies and departments, including the Commerce Department, DHS, DOD, and the State Department. They approved the Uranium One sale.

There’s no evidence that Hillary Clinton was involved or even knew. The State Department has a seat on the CFIUS committee, but even if they bribed Hillary Clinton to get this deal though, and Clinton ordered her CFIUS representative to approve the deal, there’s 15 other agencies that make up the committee, plus the NRC, plus Canadian regulators.

Nor is there evidence that Uranium One bribed anyone. They wouldn’t need to. The sale of Uranium One was not controversial because even if this was some nefarious Russian plot to steal America’s uranium, they’d still need a license to export it. The closest thing that anyone has found was a small donation to the Clinton Foundation in 2007, but in terms of bribing Hillary Clinton to approve the deal, the timeline doesn’t work. (This is not to say that Hillary Clinton is clean, she’s obviously as crooked as a dog’s hind leg. But as I said above, the real stuff is bad enough, we don’t need to make up anything extra.)

To recap: This was a foreign purchase of an American uranium mine that produces a small amount of the uranium the US uses. None of the uranium has been exported. None of it can be exported. We don’t need it because we can buy it from elsewhere. The Russians don’t need it because they have a surplus. And even if anybody did, nobody would care because this is a tiny amount of uranium.

So no, Hillary Clinton didn’t steal America’s vital uranium and sell it to the Ruskies. And no, the “Fake Media” isn’t covering it up. This whole Uranium One business is a non-story. Which makes you wonder why Donald Trump is bringing it up.

Published in Politics
Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 214 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. DocJay Inactive
    DocJay
    @DocJay

    My contention is that Mueller/Comey/Holder/Rosenstein/Lynch slow rolled an investigation to help the Clintons and the Russian reset beliefs.  A whistle-blower was silenced for political purposes as well.  I believe a sitting Sec of State and her husband were bribed by Russian business interests.  I believe this will cause Mr Mueller to be removed from his role because of conflict.

    So who wins?  You/Huffington Post or Me/Drudge Report

    Furthermore

    Comey scratched Hillary’s email scandal because of data relating to Russia ( this isn’t part of our bet).

    Comey also spied on the Trump campaign based on the Steele Dossier which Russia aided in producing and DNC/Clintons paid for. ( also not part of our bet).

    • #31
  2. Bob Thompson Member
    Bob Thompson
    @BobThompson

    Fred Cole (View Comment):

    Bob Thompson (View Comment):
    I think there is also a non-disclosure agreement initiated by the DoJ and signed an informant who was providing information regarding the bribery. Do you know anything about that and why such would be necessary?

    Quinnie (View Comment):
    And the supposed $145 million given by the Russians to the Clinton Global Initiative due to this deal, is that true? Please explain.

    I lumped these two together. Give us some links please. I’d love to pick through these.

    Why do you need links? I thought you wrote this post as if you already knew all there was to know and were telling us we had it all wrong.

    • #32
  3. DocJay Inactive
    DocJay
    @DocJay

    Fred Cole (View Comment):

    DocJay (View Comment):
    I’ll bet you a massive mea culpa post that by year’s end this is very much an issue.

    What part? That Hillary Clinton took bribes to sell America’s uranium to the Russians? Because that most certainly did not happen.

    That this story will end up being a big deal.  No specifics, too many slime bags (including Manafort) involved.

    • #33
  4. Columbo Inactive
    Columbo
    @Columbo

    Fred Cole (View Comment):

    Columbo (View Comment):
    What support do you have that Donald Trump conjured this “nonstory” out of whole cloth?

    I never claimed that.

    What I will say is that Trump has a tendency to take part of a story, sometimes from dubious sourcing, and repeat it with little concern for the truth, when he needs to distract people.

    From your main premise ….

    … false legends … So it is with the Uranium One story, which is making the rounds again, thanks to a Tweet last week from the President who said, “Uranium deal to Russia, with Clinton help and Obama Administration knowledge, is the biggest story that Fake Media doesn’t want to follow!”

    From your conclusion …

    Which makes you wonder why Donald Trump is bringing it up.

    Seems like significant attribution to the President for this story by you.

    • #34
  5. DocJay Inactive
    DocJay
    @DocJay

    C’Mon Fred.  It’s just a little bet.   Uranium One and all events surrounding it including whistle-blower, DOJ,FBI,Clintons,Podestas,Manafort, Obama.

    Big issue, I win, you write.

    Little issue, you win, I write.

    • #35
  6. Bob Thompson Member
    Bob Thompson
    @BobThompson

    Fred Cole: This whole Uranium One business is a non-story. Which makes you wonder why Donald Trump is bringing it up.

    He must be trying to distract us from Clinton’s campaign and the DNC paying for the generation of the dossier with all the fictional content.

    • #36
  7. Bryan G. Stephens Thatcher
    Bryan G. Stephens
    @BryanGStephens

    Fred Cole (View Comment):

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):
    You know what, never mind.

    I’ll be happy to hear a response from the OP on #5.

    You’ve posted four comments and yet to make a substantive criticism about anything in the piece. I’m not sure what you expect me to respond to.

    You have ignored the donations.

    • #37
  8. DocJay Inactive
    DocJay
    @DocJay

    Fred Cole: This whole Uranium One business is a non-story. Which makes you wonder why Donald Trump is bringing it up.

    He must be trying to distract us from Clinton’s campaign and the DNC paying for the generation of the dossier with all the fictional content.

     

    Oh this story may be partly making the rounds because it makes DOJ/FBI/Clinton look bad but it’s also out because of the whistle blower’s lawyer and the fact that Mueller is looking in to the slimy Podestas.

    Heck, they had one guy whose sole job was to manage Tony’s art collection.  

    • #38
  9. PHCheese Inactive
    PHCheese
    @PHCheese

    I am waiting for Gary Robbins opinion before I decide.

    • #39
  10. rico Inactive
    rico
    @rico

    Fred Cole: This whole Uranium One business is a non-story. Which makes you wonder why Donald Trump is bringing it up.

    As luck would have it, Andrew McCarthy also brought this topic up a few days ago, and as I recall, he came to a slightly different conclusion than you do here. That puts me in a real bind. Now I don’t know what to think.

    • #40
  11. Bryan G. Stephens Thatcher
    Bryan G. Stephens
    @BryanGStephens

    rico (View Comment):

    Fred Cole: This whole Uranium One business is a non-story. Which makes you wonder why Donald Trump is bringing it up.

    As luck would have it, Andrew McCarthy also brought this topic up a few days ago, and as I recall, he came to a slightly different conclusion than you do here. That puts me in a real bind. Now I don’t know what to think.

    Yeah

    • #41
  12. Larry Koler Inactive
    Larry Koler
    @LarryKoler

    Fred Cole (View Comment):

    DocJay (View Comment):
    I’ll bet you a massive mea culpa post that by year’s end this is very much an issue.

    What part? That Hillary Clinton took bribes to sell America’s uranium to the Russians? Because that most certainly did not happen.

    how would you define bribes ?

    • #42
  13. contrarian Inactive
    contrarian
    @Contrarian

    Which makes you wonder why Donald Trump is bringing it up.

    That’s easy. An informant to the FBI talked to reporters, FOX covered it as a major revelation, and Trum0 tweets FOX stories if they’re not getting attention in the MSM.

    • #43
  14. EJHill Podcaster
    EJHill
    @EJHill

    “I’ve scoured all the mainstream media for evidence that the Clintons may have broken the law and I didn’t find any. And it wasn’t on Google or Facebook either.”

    Let me get my shocked face on.

     

    • #44
  15. Richard Easton Coolidge
    Richard Easton
    @RichardEaston

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

    rico (View Comment):

    Fred Cole: This whole Uranium One business is a non-story. Which makes you wonder why Donald Trump is bringing it up.

    As luck would have it, Andrew McCarthy also brought this topic up a few days ago, and as I recall, he came to a slightly different conclusion than you do here. That puts me in a real bind. Now I don’t know what to think.

    Yeah

    Yes, it is difficult to know what to believe when two titans disagree.

    • #45
  16. Bryan G. Stephens Thatcher
    Bryan G. Stephens
    @BryanGStephens

    Richard Easton (View Comment):

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

    rico (View Comment):

    Fred Cole: This whole Uranium One business is a non-story. Which makes you wonder why Donald Trump is bringing it up.

    As luck would have it, Andrew McCarthy also brought this topic up a few days ago, and as I recall, he came to a slightly different conclusion than you do here. That puts me in a real bind. Now I don’t know what to think.

    Yeah

    Yes, it is difficult to know what to believe when two titans disagree.

    Yes:

    Andrew McCarthy

     

     

    • #46
  17. Western Chauvinist Member
    Western Chauvinist
    @WesternChauvinist

    This is so 10 hours ago. A total distraction from the real story of collusion between Russia, the Clinton campaign, the Podestas, Fusion GPS, the FBI and Comey, and his best buddy Mueller. Try to keep up, Fred.

    • #47
  18. Jager Coolidge
    Jager
    @Jager

    The guys at Power Line don’t think this is nothing. There is also an informant the FBI won’t let speak

    http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2017/10/report-obama-doj-blocked-fbi-informant-from-telling-congress-about-corrupt-uranium-deal.php

    • #48
  19. Fred Cole Inactive
    Fred Cole
    @FredCole

    Western Chauvinist (View Comment):
    This is so 10 hours ago. A total distraction from the real story of collusion between Russia, the Clinton campaign, the Podestas, Fusion GPS, the FBI and Comey, and his best buddy Mueller. Try to keep up, Fred.

    So am I to take from your comment that you have no disagreement with the substantive basis of my post?

    • #49
  20. Larry Koler Inactive
    Larry Koler
    @LarryKoler

    Moderator Note:

    You've previously been warned about this sort of attack on fellow members.

    PHCheese (View Comment):
    I am waiting for Gary Robbins opinion before I decide.

    [Redacted.] Nice to be balanced.

    • #50
  21. Western Chauvinist Member
    Western Chauvinist
    @WesternChauvinist

    Fred Cole (View Comment):

    Western Chauvinist (View Comment):
    This is so 10 hours ago. A total distraction from the real story of collusion between Russia, the Clinton campaign, the Podestas, Fusion GPS, the FBI and Comey, and his best buddy Mueller. Try to keep up, Fred.

    So am I to take from your comment that you have no disagreement with the substantive basis of my post?

    I’m sorry. Did you say something? I’m watching Debbie Wasserman Schultz do her Sgt. Schultz (a relation?) imitation:

     

    • #51
  22. blood thirsty neocon Inactive
    blood thirsty neocon
    @bloodthirstyneocon

    The informant will be heard now. I think Fred may have to sign off on that first though. What do you think? Can we hear what he has to say, Fred?

    • #52
  23. Larry Koler Inactive
    Larry Koler
    @LarryKoler

    Fred Cole (View Comment):

    Western Chauvinist (View Comment):
    This is so 10 hours ago. A total distraction from the real story of collusion between Russia, the Clinton campaign, the Podestas, Fusion GPS, the FBI and Comey, and his best buddy Mueller. Try to keep up, Fred.

    So am I to take from your comment that you have no disagreement with the substantive basis of my post?

    I certainly have no disagreement with any of your substantive basis of this post. But, that’s easy for me because I can’t find any substance that tells me that this is a non story. So: no substance = no disagreement.

    • #53
  24. Curt North Inactive
    Curt North
    @CurtNorth

    I am not going to launch an attack or go off topic, so I truly hope my comment is not redacted.

    We all know that you, @fredcole, don’t care for Trump, and that’s fine.  You write a wickedly funny and informative newsletter that I look forward to reading each morning at my desk, I share your sense of humor and usually get a nice chuckle from it, and often learn a little chunk of lost history, plus I’ve gotten some great podcast recommendations from you, I appreciate all that.  But when you discuss Trump, your attitude towards him drips into the written word.  I normally skip over sections where you discuss Trump, since like many others on the Ricochet “upper floor” you simply don’t seem to be able to help yourself.  But it’s ok, the rest of us share a knowing look, sigh, and move on.

    Then you write this piece, in effect trying to exonerate Hillary, just as this story is breaking?  We’re literally learning new things on a daily basis, but you feel the need to write this today and tell us there is no story here..?  This is plain weird, for you to feel the need to write this story as the news is being uncovered is just…strange.  You don’t mention the $145 million in “donations” to the Clinton’s foundation(s), the out-sized speaking fees for Bills speeches given in Russia, the FBI informant with a gag order on him/her from the DOJ.  Instead you focus on the mine in CO and truckers.

    There most certainly is a story here, and I can only hope there is enough integrity left in our news media that they will dig and dig, then dig some more.  That woman is corrupt to the core and a liar, she needs to be held accountable.  Fox News’s legal analyst Greg Jarret just announced that he believes she could in theory be charged with 13 crimes, all felonies, just based on what we know so far.   But there’s no story here?  This is almost unbelievable on your part, very odd.

     

    • #54
  25. Goldwaterwoman Thatcher
    Goldwaterwoman
    @goldwaterwoman

    I’m confused. Read this article from National Review:

    “Even after this skullduggery was discovered, the federal Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States — on which Hillary sat — decided that Rosatom, the Russian government’s atomic-energy company, could capture 20 percent of America’s uranium supply, by purchasing a mining company called Uranium One. Rosatom announced its acquisition plans on June 8, 2010. While Hillary weighed this deal, Bill scored $500,000 for his address that June 29 to Renaissance Capital, a Kremlin-tied bank that endorsed Rosatom’s move. Before, during, and after CFIUS’s deliberations, nine Uranium One investors gave the Clinton Foundation some $145 million. Ultimately, CFIUS approved the Kremlin’s transaction, on October 23, 2010.”

    Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/452941/russian-clinton-uranium-scandal-media-silence-damning

    • #55
  26. Robert McReynolds Member
    Robert McReynolds
    @

    Well all of this would be news to the author of Clinton Cash who pretty much had this story long before there was a candidate Trump.

    • #56
  27. JcTPatriot Member
    JcTPatriot
    @

    blood thirsty neocon (View Comment):
    The informant will be heard now. I think Fred may have to sign off on that first though. What do you think? Can we hear what he has to say, Fred?

    The Informant, if he says anything negative about Her Highness, obviously works directly for Trump’s Twitter Feed Incorporated and so we cannot trust anything he says. Don’t you understand how this works? Only positive things about Her Highness are Truth; everything else is Vast, Right-Wing Conspiracy stuff.

    I’m sorry, Mr. Cole, but I have no idea why you have decided to post a Main Feed story defending the Clinton Machine. If you are thinking that everyone is suddenly suspicious of your motives, then you are thinking correctly.

    The reason why we aren’t immediately accepting your story is because of the Cloud of Corruption that surrounds the Clintons everywhere they go. Most of us do not believe the Clintons are capable of doing any good deeds. Even the Clinton Foundation, which was supposedly created to do good deeds is so steeped in filth that it should be burned to the ground.

    • #57
  28. DocJay Inactive
    DocJay
    @DocJay

    Please bet me Fred. NothingBurger and you win, FatBurger and I win.    Single patty burger and it’s a tie.

    • #58
  29. Goldwaterwoman Thatcher
    Goldwaterwoman
    @goldwaterwoman

    Fred, just curious, but what is your source? There are conflicting points of view, and it’s tough to know which is correct. I am truly  flummoxed as I imagine many of us are.

    • #59
  30. Curt North Inactive
    Curt North
    @CurtNorth

    DocJay (View Comment):
    Please bet me Fred. NothingBurger and you win, FatBurger and I win. Single patty burger and it’s a tie.

    I wonder if Fred is having any second thoughts on the wisdom of this post :)

    • #60
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.