Con artist on verge of giving U.S. oil to Russia

[someoneyouknow]

It's been over two weeks since the Senate asked the con artist regime, via Goldman Sachs banker Mnuchin, to investigate a loan deal which may end up allowing Russia to have a majority stake in a U.S. oil company. Long story short, the deal would allow Russia's Rosneft to claim at nearly half of U.S. oil company Citgo from PDVSA, the Venezuelan state-owned oil company, if PDVSA defaults on billions in loans.

The letter notes that the deal would potentially give Rosneft a 49.9 percent minority stake in Citgo, but other transactions could tip the Russian company into owning a majority of the company. The senators also expressed concerns that Russia could use its control of Citgo to counter sanctions imposed by the Obama administration after Russia annexed the Ukrainian territory of Crimea in March 2014.

Mnuchin is the chair of the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, a panel of nine Cabinet members who review the national security implications of foreign investments in U.S. companies. In 2014, the most recent year for which data is available, it rejected just one of the 147 deals it reviewed.

Editor's note: this is the same committee, along with Canada, who approved the uranium deal with Russia. Hillary Clinton, at the time Secretary of the Department of State, was not involved with this decision as recited by many members of the committee.

A former British spy's 35-page dossier about alleged communications between Trump associates and a Russian official includes claims that in July 2016, Sechin (Putin's right hand man) met with energy industry investor Carter Page, who at the time was a foreign policy adviser to the Trump presidential campaign. Page and Russian officials have denied the meeting occurred.

Could this be the con artist's tip of the hat to his buddy Putin? Only time will tell.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/menendez-treasury-rosneft-citgo-russian-oil-update/

 

[Boxlicker101]

These might be the only people in the world who believe Hillary had nothing to do with the sale of uranium to Russia. https://us.search.yahoo.com/yhs/sea...0&os=Windows+10+Home&p=hillary+uranium+russia

 

[phrodeau]

So which is Russia more likely to use against US interests, oil or uranium?

 

[Boxlicker101]

So which is Russia more likely to use against US interests, oil or uranium?

Oil is not really such a big deal. Russia and the US both have vast reserves. But uranium is used to make nuclear bombs, and could be very dangerous.

 

[phrodeau]

Oil is not really such a big deal. Russia and the US both have vast reserves. But uranium is used to make nuclear bombs, and could be very dangerous.

Oh, I feel pretty sure that Putin isn't going to start lobbing nukes or selling them to terrorists. But he'd be happy to spray oil all over the planet.

 

[sr71plt]

I'm pretty sure Box is going to remain forever clueless.

 

[someoneyouknow]

These might be the only people in the world who believe Hillary had nothing to do with the sale of uranium to Russia. https://us.search.yahoo.com/yhs/sea...0&os=Windows+10+Home&p=hillary+uranium+russia

She didn't.

http://www.businessinsider.com/everything-we-know-about-the-hillary-clinton-russia-uranium-scandal-2015-4

What's the evidence in Clinton's favor? Even if Clinton had wanted to make sure the sale was approved, it wouldn't have been possible for her to do it on her own. CFIUS is made up of not only the Secretary of State, but also the secretaries of Treasury, Justice, Homeland Security, Commerce, Defense, and Energy, as well as the heads of the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative and the Office of Science and Technology Policy.

The Director of National Intelligence and the Secretary of Labor are non-voting members, and CFIUS's work is also observed by representatives of other agencies like the National Security Council and the Office of Management and Budget. The idea that Clinton could have convinced all those officials and all those departments to change their position on the sale, even if she had wanted to, borders on the absurd.

Furthermore, the official who was the State Department's representative on CFIUS at the time, Jose Hernandez, told Time magazine that Clinton did not participate in the evaluation of this deal: "Secretary Clinton never intervened with me on any CFIUS matter," he said.​

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/10/26/the-facts-behind-trumps-repeated-claim-about-hillary-clintons-role-in-the-russian-uranium-deal/?utm_term=.923e2ef112cb

The State Department was one of nine agencies comprising CFIUS, which vets potential national security impacts of transactions where a foreign government gains control of a U.S. company. It was established by Congress in 2007 after the controversy over the planned purchase of seaports by a company in United Arab Emirates. The other agencies were the departments of Treasury, Defense, Justice, Commerce, Energy and Homeland Security, and two White House agencies (Office of the U.S. Trade Representative and Office of Science and Technology Policy).​

Editor's note: In 2007, Bush was president so this committee was established because of him allowing foreign government to purchase critical American assets.

The CFIUS can approve a deal, but only the president can suspend or stop a transaction. If the committee can’t come to a consensus, a member can recommend a suspension or prohibition of the deal, and the president makes the call.​

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/jun/30/donald-trump/donald-trump-inaccurately-suggests-clinton-got-pai/

First, the State Department did approve of Russia’s gradual takeover of a company with significant U.S. uranium assets, but it didn’t act unilaterally. State was one of nine government agencies, not to mention independent federal and state nuclear regulators, that had to sign off on the deal.

Second, while nine people related to the company did donate to the Clinton Foundation, it’s unclear whether they were still involved in the company by the time of the Russian deal and stood to benefit from it.

Third, most of their Clinton Foundation donations occurred before and during Hillary Clinton’s 2008 presidential bid, before she could have known she would become secretary of state.​

http://www.factcheck.org/2015/04/no-veto-power-for-clinton-on-uranium-deal/

Chris Wallace, host of “Fox News Sunday,” made that point when he questioned Schweizer about his lack of evidence connecting the donations to the uranium deal. (Fox News was among the media outlets that received an advance copy of his book.) Schweizer made the counterargument — again without any evidence — that the investors bought her silence by making contributions to the Clinton Foundation.

Schweizer speculated that investors were worried about Clinton’s history of opposing the sale of “critical assets” in the U.S., citing her opposition as a senator to the 2006 sale of six U.S. ports to Dubai Ports World, a state-owned business in the United Arab Emirates.​

Editor's note: see above comment regarding sale of ports

But Schweizer is wrong when he says that Clinton had “veto power” and “could have stopped the deal.” At best, she could have forced the president to make a decision.

The committee, which is known by its acronym CFIUS, can approve a sale, but it cannot stop a sale. Only the president can do that, and only if the committee recommends or “any member of CFIUS recommends suspension or prohibition of the transaction,” according to guidelines issued by the Treasury Department in December 2008 after the department adopted its final rule a month earlier.​

. . .

Very little is known about the Uranium One-Rosatom deal or Clinton’s role in it. That’s because the law has “strong confidentiality requirements,” as Treasury explains on its site. “By law, information filed with CFIUS is subject to strong confidentiality requirements that prohibit disclosure to the public. Accordingly, CFIUS does not disclose whether parties to any transaction have filed notices with CFIUS, nor does CFIUS disclose the results of any review,” Treasury says. “When a transaction is referred to the President, however, the decision of the President is announced publicly.”​

 

[Boxlicker101]

I'm glad to see you have changed your mind and are now in agreement with me. This is the part of your post to which I took exception: Editor's note: this is the same committee, along with Canada, who approved the uranium deal with Russia. Hillary Clinton, at the time Secretary of the Department of State, was not involved with this decision as recited by many members of the committee.


And now you are conceding that she was instrumental in the series of transactions that sold so much uranium to Russia. I would certainly never claim she was the only traitorous individual involved.

 

[someoneyouknow]

I'm glad to see you have changed your mind and are now in agreement with me. This is the part of your post to which I took exception: Editor's note: this is the same committee, along with Canada, who approved the uranium deal with Russia. Hillary Clinton, at the time Secretary of the Department of State, was not involved with this decision as recited by many members of the committee.


And now you are conceding that she was instrumental in the series of transactions that sold so much uranium to Russia. I would certainly never claim she was the only traitorous individual involved.

Didn't read what you posted, did you? It explicitly said Hillary wasn't involved with the deal. In fact, the very last thing I posted was from someone who was part of the deal who explicitly said she didn't interfere.

Reading comprehension. It's a thing.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Didn't read what you posted, did you? It explicitly said Hillary wasn't involved with the deal. In fact, the very last thing I posted was from someone who was part of the deal who explicitly said she didn't interfere.

Reading comprehension. It's a thing.

Of course I read what I posted, and I didn't believe it. I didn't believe a transaction such as this could have occurred without the Sec. of State. I suppose once these other guys saw how unpopular the deal was, they lied to cover the ass of the presidential nominee of their party. Why else would the other participants make such a big payoff to Hillary?

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/...s-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html

 

[Beco]

Oh, I feel pretty sure that Putin isn't going to start lobbing nukes or selling them to terrorists. But he'd be happy to spray oil all over the planet.

Why wouldnt he?

 

[Hard_Rom]

If Putin can control enough oil resources he can influence prices. Russia is being hit hard by sanctions and low oil prices.

Controlling certain resources does not mean that you can just up and ship it all to whom ever you want. Controlling uranium has more to do with commodity price influencing not selling it to terrorists.

Inevitably profits flow out of the country when domestic industry is owned by foreigners.

They get certain legal rights too. Don't sell more than 51% of your farmland to foreign interests.

 

[phrodeau]

Why wouldnt he?

Because there's an old Russian folktale about a scorpion and a tortoise.