ILLEGAL NEWS: We oppose all violence.
01/09/17: Obama Gives 130 TONS of Nuclear Material to Iran Before His Fake Tenure as “President” is Over
ILLEGAL NEWS: Caught on a hot mic, Obama was caught committing treason against the United States of America by openly conspiring with the Russian Ambassador and Vladimir Putin. Presidential Candidate Mitt Romney later brought this treason up in the Presidential debates. Interestingly, neither of them went on to become President, as Obama and Romney both lost the election (massive proven voter fraud, threatening to murder Romney, numerous proven felonies and Constitutional ineligibility) and Romney (or at least his campaign), who got more votes by far than Obama, cheated against Ron Paul in the primaries, thereby invalidating both of their claims to the Presidency.
The Podesta Emails; Part One
Today WikiLeaks begins its series on deals involving Hillary Clinton campaign Chairman John Podesta. 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. Part 1 of the Podesta Emails comprises 2,060 emails and 170 attachments and focuses on Mr Podesta’s communications relating to nuclear energy, and media handling over donations to the Clinton Foundation from mining and nuclear interests; 1,244 of the emails reference nuclear energy. The full collection includes emails to and from Hillary Clinton.
In April 2015 the New York Times published a story about a company called “Uranium One” which was sold to Russian government-controlled interests, giving Russia effective control of one-fifth of all uranium production capacity in the United States. Since uranium is considered a strategic asset, with implications for the production of nuclear weapons, the deal had to be approved by a committee composed of representatives from a number of US government agencies. Among the agencies that eventually signed off the deal was the State Department, then headed by Secretary Clinton. The Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) comprises, among others, the secretaries of the Treasury, Defense, Homeland Security, Commerce and Energy.
As Russian interests gradually took control of Uranium One millions of dollars were donated to the Clinton Foundation between 2009 and 2013 from individuals directly connected to the deal including the Chairman of Uranium One, Ian Telfer. Although Mrs Clinton had an agreement with the Obama White House to publicly identify all donors to the Clinton Foundation, the contributions from the Chairman of Uranium One were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons.
When the New York Times article was published the Clinton campaign spokesman, Brian Fallon, strongly rejected the possibility that then-Secretary Clinton exerted any influence in the US goverment’s review of the sale of Uranium One, describing this possibility as “baseless”.
Mr Fallon promptly sent a memo to the New York Times with a rebuttal of the story (Podesta Email ID 1489).
In this memo, Mr Fallon argued: “Apart from the fact that the State Department was one of just nine agencies involved in CFIUS, it is also true that within the State Department, the CFIUS approval process historically does not trigger the personal involvement of the Secretary of State. The State Department’s principal representative to CFIUS was the Assistant Secretary of State for Economic, Energy and Business Affairs. During the time period in question, that position was held by Jose Fernandez. As you are aware, Mr Fernandez has personally attested that “Secretary Clinton never intervened with me on any CFIUS matter.”
What the Clinton campaign spokesman failed to disclose, however, was the fact that a few days before sending his rebuttal to the New York Times, Jose Fernandez wrote on the evening of the 17 April 2015 to John Podesta following a phone call from Mr Podesta (Email ID 2053): “John, It was good to talk to you this afternoon, and I appreciate your taking the time to call. As I mentioned, I would like to do all I can to support Secretary Clinton, and would welcome your advice and help in steering me to the right persons in the campaign”.
Five days after this email (22 April 2015), Clinton spokesman Brian Fallon wrote a memo to the New York Times, declaring that “Jose Fernandez has personally attested that ‘Secretary Clinton never intervened with me on any CFIUS matter’,” but Fallon failed to mention that Fernandez was hardly a neutral witness in this case, considering that he had agreed with John Podesta to play a role in the Clinton campaign.
The emails show that the contacts between John Podesta and Jose Fernandez go back to the time of internal Clinton campaign concern about the then-forthcoming book and movie “Clinton Cash” by Peter Schweizer on the financial dealings of the Clinton Foundation.
In an email dated 29 March 2015 (Email ID 2059), Jose Fernandez writes to Podesta: “Hi John, I trust you are getting a brief rest after a job well done. Thanks no doubt to your recommendation I have joined the CAP [Center for American Progress] board of trustees, which I’m finding extremely rewarding.”
One month before former State Department official Jose Fernandez defended then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s decision to sign off on the transfer of 20 percent of U.S. uranium to Russia, Fernandez told John Podesta that he was eager to “do all I can to support Secretary Clinton,” according to purported emails uncovered by WikiLeaks.
On March 30, 2015 — weeks before the explosive book Clinton Cash was released, and nearly a month before the New York Times published a 4,000 word story detailing the Uranium One transaction that multiple donors to the Clinton Foundation made millions from — Jose Fernandez wrote an email to Podesta in hopes that the pair could meet.
On April 17, Fernandez writes to Podesta, again, thanking him for their meeting and said, “I would like to do all I can to support Secretary Clinton, and would welcome your advice and help in steering me to the right persons in the campaign.”
As it turns out, Fernandez’s “support” came less than a week later.
On April 22, the day before the New York Times ran its Uranium One story, Time Magazine online published a story quoting Fernandez as calling Clinton Cash’s reporting “absurd conspiracy theories,” adding, “Secretary Clinton never intervened with me on any CFIUS matter.”
What’s more, on April 23, following the publication of Times reporter Jo Becker’s groundbreaking Uranium One-Clinton Foundation exposé, the Clinton campaign responded to Becker’s story in a blog post on Medium, citing Fernandez’s quote from the day before as the centerpiece of their pushback.
Brian Fallon, national press secretary for Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign, wrote:
The essential fact is that Hillary Clinton was not involved in the State Department’s review of the sale to the Russians. While it is true that the State Department sits on the multi-agency, inter-governmental panel that reviews deals like this one, Hillary Clinton herself did not participate in the review or direct the Department to take any position on the sale of Uranium One. This is consistent with past practice; historically, matters pertaining to the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (C.F.I.U.S.) do not rise to the Secretary’s level. Rather, it is the Assistant Secretary of State for Economic, Energy and Business Affairs who serves as the State Department’s principal representative to C.F.I.U.S. The individual who held that post in 2010 was Jose Fernandez, and he has personally attested that then-Secretary Clinton never interfered with him, saying “Mrs. Clinton never intervened with me on any C.F.I.U.S. matter.”
The coordination between Fernandez, the Clinton campaign, and its chairman John Podesta is undeniable.
Sure Fernandez, as Fallon wrote, “personally attested” that Clinton “never interfered” with his decision to sign off on the uranium deal. But he made that claim after professing his commitment to do everything in his power to “support Secretary Clinton.”
What’s also undeniable is that while Clinton’s State Department was one of eight agencies to review and sign off on the uranium deal — then-Secretary of State Clinton herself was the only agency head whose family foundation received $145 million in donations from multiple people connected to the sale, as reported by the New York Times.
Not to mention Bill Clinton, who received a $500,000 speaking fee for a speech in Moscow paid for by a Russian government-connected bank.
“And, in one case, a Russian investment bank connected to the deals paid money to Bill Clinton personally, through a half-million-dollar speaker’s fee,” reports the New Yorker.
To date, no one in the Clinton campaign has ever denied the fact the Clinton-brokered sale of 20% of U.S. uranium to the Russian government ended up benefitting people who donated millions to her family foundation.
ILLEGAL NEWS: We oppose all violence. While Obama and the CIA continue to make up lies about imaginary Russian election hacks, for some reason the CIA, FBI, White House or Congress are EVEN MENTIONING THIS ACT OF TREASON…the fact that Obama (and likely his Jesuit CIA advisors and cabinet members) SOLD NUCLEAR CODES TO VLADIMIR PUTIN:
WikiLeaks cables: US agrees to tell Russia Britain’s nuclear secrets
The US secretly agreed to give the Russians sensitive information on Britain’s nuclear deterrent to persuade them to sign a key treaty, The Daily Telegraph can disclose.
HMS Vanguard is Britain’s lead Trident-armed submarine. The US, under a nuclear deal, has agreed to give the Kremlin the serial numbers of the missiles it gives Britain Photo: TAM MACDONALD
By Matthew Moore, Gordon Rayner and Christopher Hope
9:25PM GMT 04 Feb 2011
Information about every Trident missile the US supplies to Britain will be given to Russia as part of an arms control deal signed by President Barack Obama next week.
Defence analysts claim the agreement risks undermining Britain’s policy of refusing to confirm the exact size of its nuclear arsenal.
The fact that the Americans used British nuclear secrets as a bargaining chip also sheds new light on the so-called “special relationship”, which is shown often to be a one-sided affair by US diplomatic communications obtained by the WikiLeaks website.
Details of the behind-the-scenes talks are contained in more than 1,400 US embassy cables published to date by the Telegraph, including almost 800 sent from the London Embassy, which are published online today. The documents also show that:
• America spied on Foreign Office ministers by gathering gossip on their private lives and professional relationships.
Deterrence can’t be done on the cheap 15 Jul 2013
Rape case against the WikiLeaks chief ‘weak’ 05 Feb 2011
WikiLeaks: ‘We can’t control Duchess of York’ 04 Feb 2011
How US spied on the Foreign Office 04 Feb 2011
Gordon Brown ‘forced to scrap plan for snap election’ 04 Feb 2011
WikiLeaks cables: Zardari is a numbskull, British told Americans 05 Feb 2011
WikiLeaks: US embassy cables map 05 Feb 2011
FCO ‘refused to speak with doomed British hostage’ 04 Feb 2011
WikiLeaks files in full 04 Feb 2011
WikiLeaks cables: Thailand’s royal pet 05 Feb 2011
• Intelligence-sharing arrangements with the US became strained after the controversy over Binyam Mohamed, the former Guantánamo Bay detainee who sued the Government over his alleged torture.
• David Miliband disowned the Duchess of York by saying she could not “be controlled” after she made an undercover TV documentary.
• Tens of millions of pounds of overseas aid was stolen and spent on plasma televisions and luxury goods by corrupt regimes.
A series of classified messages sent to Washington by US negotiators show how information on Britain’s nuclear capability was crucial to securing Russia’s support for the “New START” deal.
Although the treaty was not supposed to have any impact on Britain, the leaked cables show that Russia used the talks to demand more information about the UK’s Trident missiles, which are manufactured and maintained in the US.
Washington lobbied London in 2009 for permission to supply Moscow with detailed data about the performance of UK missiles. The UK refused, but the US agreed to hand over the serial numbers of Trident missiles it transfers to Britain.
Professor Malcolm Chalmers said: “This appears to be significant because while the UK has announced how many missiles it possesses, there has been no way for the Russians to verify this. Over time, the unique identifiers will provide them with another data point to gauge the size of the British arsenal.”
Duncan Lennox, editor of Jane’s Strategic Weapons Systems, said: “They want to find out whether Britain has more missiles than we say we have, and having the unique identifiers might help them.”
While the US and Russia have long permitted inspections of each other’s nuclear weapons, Britain has sought to maintain some secrecy to compensate for the relatively small size of its arsenal.
William Hague, the Foreign Secretary, last year disclosed that “up to 160” warheads are operational at any one time, but did not confirm the number of missiles.