FBI kept Russian Bribery Plot under wraps before Obama Administration approved Nuclear Deal - Polidicks

[quote]The Obama administration signed a controversial nuclear deal with Moscow despite prior FBI findings that Russian officials were bribing their way into the U.S. atomic energy industry, according to government documents just published by The Hill. A confidential U.S. witness deployed by the FBI infiltrated Russia’s nuclear industry and made secret recordings, collected financial records and intercepted emails dating back to 2009 that showed that Moscow engaged in bribery and kickbacks with an American uranium trucking company, documents show. But the Obama administration insisted no evidence existed of Russian interference and that there were no national security concerns for committee members to go against the deal in 2010. The deal that boosted Vladimir Putin’s nuclear footprint in the U.S. took place in October 2010 when the State Department and the Committee on Foreign Investment unanimously agreed to a partial sale of Uranium One, a Canadian mining company, to the major Russian nuclear company Rosatom, effectively sending more than 20 percent of the U.S.’s uranium to Moscow. In 2011, the Obama administration gave the green light for Rosatom’s Tenex subsidiary to sell uranium to American nuclear power plants. Before the deal, Tenex could only sell reprocessed uranium from dismantled Soviet nuclear firearms to power plants in the U.S. Russian exortion threats and kickbacks brought legitimate national security concerns, "And none of that evidence got aired before the Obama administration made those decisions,” a souce who insisted on anonymity out of fear of retribution told The Hill. Then-U.S. Attorney Rod Rosenstein, who was appointed by Obama and now works as President Donald Trump’s deputy attorney general, and then-Assistant FBI Director Andrew McCabe, who serves as deputy FBI director under Trump, supervised the investigation, documents show. [b]FBI agents also gathered documents and a witness account that Russian officials routed millions of dollars to ex-President Bill Clinton’s charitable foundation while Secretary of State Hillary Clinton sat on a committee that gave a nod to the dealings with Moscow.[/b] Like the Obama administration, the Clintons said there was no evidence to prompt them to go the other way on the Uranium One deal. The Department of Justice investigated the Russian plot for close to four years, keeping the information under wraps while the Obama administration approved the deal instead of bringing immediate charges, A November 2014 indictment states that Vadim Mikerin, a director of Rosatom’s Tenex, “did knowingly and willfully combine, conspire confederate and agree with other persons … to obstruct, delay and affect commerce and the movement of an article and commodity (enriched uranium) in commerce by extortion” from 2009 to January 2012. The House Intelligence Committee chairman at the time, former Rep. Mike Rogers of Michigan, told The Hill that he was never informed about the "breathtaking" Russian efforts to manipulate America’s enterprise. Many lawmakers back then had serious concerns about the Uranium One deal, he said. “Not providing information on a corruption scheme before the Russian uranium deal was approved by U.S. regulators and engage appropriate congressional committees has served to undermine U.S. national security interests by the very people charged with protecting them,” Rogers said, short of labeling it a coverup. [/quote] [url]http://www.newsweek.com/fbi-kept-russian-bribery-plot-under-wraps-obama-approved-nuclear-deal-moscow-686660[/url]

What does Russia want with our power grid so bad? Killing the power would only benefit them if they attacked the country.

[QUOTE=chipsnapper2;52788469]What does Russia want with our power grid so bad? Killing the power would only benefit them if they attacked the country.[/QUOTE] Economic damage, western destabilization, etc.

Imagine what crippling the national power grid at, say, 9:30am on the day of the 2020 presidential election would do.

now why did the FBI sit on this when congress, the WH and the opposition parties all needed this evidence?

[QUOTE=elixwhitetail;52788504]Imagine what crippling the national power grid at, say, 9:30am on the day of the 2020 presidential election would do.[/QUOTE] Make it so Russia undeniably becomes an enemy of the state, remove 100% of trust in Russia from every nation on the planet, cause Russia to be effectivley sanctioned out of the western world's economy, and delay the election by a week?

[QUOTE=chipsnapper2;52788469]What does Russia want with our power grid so bad? Killing the power would only benefit them if they attacked the country.[/QUOTE] Sell some useless shit too. Money can be useful

I'm skeptical of this story because The Hill seems to be the ultimate source.

Russia has been undermining our democracy and interests for far too long. I fear that violent confrontation is the inevitable climax of their continued warfare.

[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;52788791]Russia has been undermining our democracy and interests for far too long. I fear that violent confrontation is the inevitable climax of their continued warfare.[/QUOTE] Might be an attritional alternative. Russia have failed miserably to diversify their economy from fossil fuels. As time goes by oil, gas and Russia will become less and less relevant. Maybe pie in the sky pacifism and maybe Russia would get violent once Europe stop buying and maybe Russia would find a way to diversify its economy but it is a possibility.

[QUOTE=Judas;52788611]Make it so Russia undeniably becomes an enemy of the state, remove 100% of trust in Russia from every nation on the planet, cause Russia to be effectivley sanctioned out of the western world's economy, and delay the election by a week?[/QUOTE] How many people on this forum continue to insist that Russia didn't interfere with our election and it's all just speculation? Russia's been caught interfering in the democracies of multiple Western countries and nothing significant has happened. Anything cyber intrinsically has enough plausible deniability that they can get away with it. If they shut down our entire power grid, even if it could be traced back to Russia it'd be blamed on terrorists or other third-party actors and somehow people would buy it.

[QUOTE=catbarf;52788846]How many people on this forum continue to insist that Russia didn't interfere with our election and it's all just speculation?[/QUOTE] Who has done that? I've seen people insist that Trump didn't collude with Russia, but I don't think I've seen anyone insist that Russia didn't try to do something. Personally, I don't quite understand the surprise of it all. I've just assumed that every nation is trying to influence basically every other nation in whatever way they can get away with.

[QUOTE=sgman91;52788854]Who has done that? I've seen people insist that Trump didn't collude with Russia, but I don't think I've seen anyone insist that Russia didn't try to do something. Personally, I don't quite understand the surprise of it all. I've just assumed that every nation is trying to influence basically every other nation in whatever way they can get away with.[/QUOTE] True, and yet. For example, what would the US gain by destabalising Europe, especially when most European countries are allies? Nothing. What would Russia gain, on the other hand? A lot. They'd be able to regain control of former satellite states and effectively control Europe. And frankly, as much as I dislike the current US administration, I'd rather have them than Russia.

[QUOTE=Spetsnaz95;52788885]True, and yet. For example, what would the US gain by destabalising Europe, especially when most European countries are allies? Nothing. What would Russia gain, on the other hand? A lot. They'd be able to regain control of former satellite states and effectively control Europe. And frankly, as much as I dislike the current US administration, I'd rather have them than Russia.[/QUOTE] How has Russia actually destabilized us, though? It seems all the current destabilization is coming more from the controversy around Russia, with people trying to pin collusion on everyone else, than what Russia has actually done.

[QUOTE=sgman91;52788948]How has Russia actually destabilized us, though? It seems all the current destabilization is coming more from the controversy around Russia, with people trying to pin collusion on everyone else, than what Russia has actually done.[/QUOTE] You think that's an accident?

[QUOTE=BelatedGamer;52788976]You think that's an accident?[/QUOTE] Sure, but my point is to distinguish what is actually causing destabilization. It isn't Russia. It's our own inability to have rational conversation and lack of common goals. At most, Russia is an indirect and secondary cause. There's currently a massive effort in trying to pin collusion on Trump and/or Clinton, and it is based a whole lot more on hatred for those people than actual evidence. Sure, Trump probably did some shady business deals with Russia, just like every big business person does at some point. Sure, the Clintons probably made some shady tit-for-tat deals with Russia for funding, but are those things really as big of a problem as we're making them seem? Really? I would love to come to the bottom of them both, but I want to do it in a real investigation that isn't bound to one political party or the other, based on real, hard, evidence instead of a few unnamed sources here and there being throw around in the media. You saw, to a lesser degree, the same exact kind of problems brewing far before anything about Russia came out. In my opinion, it would have happened anyway, just possibly a little later. The problem is ourselves and we are trying as hard as possible to make it seem like we are the victims.

[QUOTE=sgman91;52789034]Sure, but my point is to distinguish what is actually causing destabilization. It isn't Russia. It's our own inability to have rational conversation and lack of common goals. At most, Russia is an indirect and secondary cause. [B]There's currently a massive effort in trying to pin collusion on Trump and/or Clinton, and it is based a whole lot more on hatred for those people than actual evidence. [/B]Sure, Trump probably did some shady business deals with Russia, just like every big business person does at some point. Sure, the Clintons probably made some shady tit-for-tat deals with Russia for funding, but are those things really as big of a problem as we're making them seem? Really? I would love to come to the bottom of them both, but I want to do it in a real investigation that isn't bound to one political party or the other, based on real, hard, evidence instead of a few unnamed sources here and there being throw around in the media. You saw, to a lesser degree, the same exact kind of problems brewing far before anything about Russia came out. In my opinion, it would have happened anyway, just possibly a little later. The problem is ourselves and we are trying as hard as possible to make it seem like we are the victims.[/QUOTE] I'm sorry, but if you think that there's no "actual evidence" to implicate Trump and Co. in collusion with hostile Russian agents, then you have been living under a very large rock. [url]https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2017/07/19/an-interactive-timeline-of-key-moments-in-the-trump-russia-investigation/[/url] There *is* a "real investigation" based on "real, hard evidence." In fact, it's one of the largest FBI investigations in US history, and has resulted in some completely unprecedented events, including pre-dawn no-knock FBI raids on the homes of key advisers to the fuckin' [I]President of the United States.[/I] Trying to handwave this increasingly horrifying situation away as partisan politics is extremely concerning.

[QUOTE=sgman91;52789034]Sure, but my point is to distinguish what is actually causing destabilization. It isn't Russia. It's our own inability to have rational conversation and lack of common goals. At most, Russia is an indirect and secondary cause.[/QUOTE] I don't see how this is relevant; the fact that our country is very politically divided doesn't really change the fact that Russia is aggressively preying on that division to destabilize us. It'd be nice if we could get along, sure, but the fact that an outside nation is pushing a massive effort to worsen it is huge cause for concern. [QUOTE=sgman91;52789034]There's currently a massive effort in trying to pin collusion on Trump and/or Clinton, and it is based a whole lot more on hatred for those people than actual evidence.[/QUOTE] I can't speak for whether Trump personally colluded with the Russian government, but I [I]can[/I] say that he has without a doubt attempted to obstruct investigations into that subject, which doesn't exactly paint a pretty picture and is also a massive problem on its own. It's not just that people hate him.

[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;52789104]I'm sorry, but if you think that there's no "actual evidence" to implicate Trump and Co. in collusion with hostile Russian agents, then you have been living under a very large rock. [URL]https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2017/07/19/an-interactive-timeline-of-key-moments-in-the-trump-russia-investigation/[/URL][/QUOTE] A few people in his administrations, sure, but I don't believe there's anything that ties to Trump, as of yet. The difference between us is that I assume this kind of thing happens all the time across the political spectrum, and you seem to think that most politicians are pure from foreign influence. It's a whole lot easier to pick out the bad apples when the first thought in people's mind isn't what side they are on. With that said, your article is paywalled, and I can't read it. [editline]17th October 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=BelatedGamer;52789116]I don't see how this is relevant; the fact that our country is very politically divided doesn't really change the fact that Russia is aggressively preying on that division to destabilize us. It'd be nice if we could get along, sure, but the fact that an outside nation is pushing a massive effort to worsen it is huge cause for concern.[/QUOTE] Like I said, I've worked under the assumption that Russia has been trying to do that for the last couple decades, and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future. We aren't going to beat them by spending all our time and energy looking to put collusion on the other side. We are only going to beat them by standing as a unified front. I don't mean being unified across all political issues. I mean being unified in our common goal of wanting the best for our country as a whole. I'm also not saying only the left is doing this. It's common across our entire political system right now. We are more interested in demonizing the other side than we are in standing, and protecting, the many many good things that we already have.

[QUOTE=sgman91;52789124] We aren't going to beat them by spending all our time and energy looking to put collusion on the other side.[/QUOTE] And there is no way in hell we're going to beat them if we allow the people they've chosen in our highest levels of government. I mean yeah fixing political divisions is something that needs to happen, but if there is evidence pointing toward collusion it [I]must[/I] be investigated.

[QUOTE=BelatedGamer;52789149]And there is no way in hell we're going to beat them if we allow the people they've chosen in our highest levels of government.[/QUOTE] I'm not saying we don't investigate where the evidence leads. I'm all for that. What I'm not for is this almost religious desire to destroy the other side. I'm not for the DESIRE to find evidence of collusion. Let's say we found out next week that Obama did a ton of obvious collusion with Russia (I'm not at all saying this actually happened. It's just an example.) This revelation wouldn't make me happy, even though I disagree with just about everyone he stands for politically. The problem is that it would make a TON of people really happy. Why? Not because it's better for the country, but because they really hate Obama and love to see the democrats take a hit. The same applies in both directions, and it's a massive problem.

"A few people in his administration..." All of his key advisers and family members.

[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;52789383]"A few people in his administration..." All of his key advisers and family members.[/QUOTE] Did not knew having your house raided by FBI means your career is over. [I]Lotta Damage, wow...[/I] If anything , soo far "investigation" is staggeringly slow and inefficient and most probably won't lead to anything actually significant for those involved.

[QUOTE=karimatrix;52789439]Did not knew having your house raided by FBI means your career is over. [I]Lotta Damage, wow...[/I] If anything , soo far "investigation" is staggeringly slow and inefficient and most probably won't lead to anything actually significant for those involved.[/QUOTE] It means that the investigative team had enough evidence incriminating the man in question AND suggesting he'd destroy evidence that a federal judge authorized the same kind of raid performed on deadly criminals and drug lords but definitely nothing happening, totally slow and boring, and extremely inefficient and nothing significant happening, ofc [editline]edited[/editline] besides a few relatives, even his previous fuckin [URL="https://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1582076"]chief of staff was interviewed by mueller's team[/URL] ffs

[QUOTE=karimatrix;52789439]Did not knew having your house raided by FBI means your career is over. [I]Lotta Damage, wow...[/I] If anything , soo far "investigation" is staggeringly slow and inefficient and most probably won't lead to anything actually significant for those involved.[/QUOTE] Willful self delusion. Meuller's investigation has been shockingly quick to the punch. Effectively everybody who actually understands our legal system feels that indictments are almost certain. This investigation has been ANYTHING but "slow and inefficient." Your inistence to the contrary shows just how ignorant you are. [Quote] The moves against Mr. Manafort are just a glimpse of the aggressive tactics used by Mr. Mueller and his team of prosecutors in the four months since taking over the Justice Department’s investigation into Russia’s attempts to disrupt last year’s election, according to lawyers, witnesses and American officials who have described the approach. Dispensing with the plodding pace typical of many white-collar investigations, Mr. Mueller’s team has used what some describe as shock-and-awe tactics to intimidate witnesses and potential targets of the inquiry. Mr. Mueller has obtained a flurry of subpoenas to compel witnesses to testify before a grand jury, lawyers and witnesses say, sometimes before his prosecutors have taken the customary first step of interviewing them. One witness was called before the grand jury less than a month after his name surfaced in news accounts. The special counsel even took the unusual step of obtaining a subpoena for one of Mr. Manafort’s former lawyers, claiming an exception to the rule that shields attorney-client discussions from scrutiny[/quote] [url]https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/09/18/us/politics/mueller-russia-investigation.html[/url] This is a "shock and awe" speed of investigative tactics.

[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;52789574]Willful self delusion. Meuller's investigation has been shockingly quick to the punch. Effectively everybody who actually understands our legal system feels that indictments are almost certain. This investigation has been ANYTHING but "slow and inefficient." Your inistence to the contrary shows just how ignorant you are. [url]https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/09/18/us/politics/mueller-russia-investigation.html[/url] This is a "shock and awe" speed of investigative tactics.[/QUOTE] interviews, raids, gathering of intel... and anybody under charges yet? Prime suspects? When anything crosses border beyond accusations, then tell me about it being "shock and awe" tactic. Soo far it's just a chewing material for press, full of loud words and legal phrases. "indicments are almost certain"... Well, Hillary was "almost certainly winning" too.

[QUOTE=karimatrix;52789600]interviews, raids, gathering of intel... and anybody under charges yet? Prime suspects? When anything crosses border beyond accusations, then tell me about it being "shock and awe" tactic. Soo far it's just a chewing material for press, full of loud words and legal phrases. "indicments are almost certain"... Well, Hillary was "almost certainly winning" too.[/QUOTE] No one is going to be arrested until they're certain they can build a solid case against the accused. That's not unusual. And considering the scope of the investigation, it'll be more than just a few months before we'll see people charged with something.

[QUOTE=karimatrix;52789600]interviews, raids, gathering of intel... and anybody under charges yet? Prime suspects? When anything crosses border beyond accusations, then tell me about it being "shock and awe" tactic. Soo far it's just a chewing material for press, full of loud words and legal phrases. "indicments are almost certain"... Well, Hillary was "almost certainly winning" too.[/QUOTE] The investigation has been officially active for barely six months now, and it represents perhaps the single largest federal investigation is US history. This shit is going to last [I]years.[/I]

[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;52789625]The investigation has been officially active for barely six months now, and it represents perhaps the single pargeat federal investigation is US history. This shit is going to last [I]years.[/I][/QUOTE] Well then, as i was saying - If anything , soo far "investigation" is staggeringly slow and inefficient and most probably won't lead to anything actually significant for those involved. Cause they will be [I]fucken old[/I] beyond caring. but yeah, justice, hurrah!

I actually don't doubt that Manafort might be indicted, but I don't see it going much further than that.