Why would any of those groups get involved?
No "crime" has occurred.
Is bribery a crime? Would large donations and speaking engagements which coordinate with business operations, not raise some eyebrows?
Certainly the circumstances of how a foreign owned uranium company in Canada operates should receive great attention, especially since that country is owned by Russia. The RCMP had a 15 year period in which it laid the lowest number of bribery and corruption charges laid in the West, a TOTAL of two. That's right two charges laid nationally. America and France had many hundreds laid in their respective countries. Appears foreign countries understand this lack of desire to uphold the Rule of Law, and with NAFTA and the Canadian Police on their side, they can achieve their state goals by operating out of Canada, under the noses of American authorities for the most part.
There is a National Security threat posed when any country owns a uranium business on your shores, let alone one owned by Russia. If a North Korean company stated they were opening up a uranium business in New York, would it draw any attention from anyone or would every say "hey, they are just business people" and leave it at that?
What "national security" threat do you see posed by a Russian company owning uranium mines in the US?
Be specific. What exactly are you worried about?
I'm worried about this not being anything at all to do with free market, but government exploitation of my resources. France any many others could use that Uranium, why would I hand it to Russia when they are an open adversary?
Who owned the uranium in America that was sold? YOU owned it, not some company out of Idaho.
You are confused on a number of issues.
First of all, you seem to be conflating the sale of the mining company with the uranium itself. No uranium was moved from the US to Russia by this deal. UraniumOne does not have an export license. All of that uranium will remain in the US unless it is sold to a heavily regulated export company, which would then sell it on the international market. If France needs uranium, they can always buy some.
Second, it was never "my" uranium, any more than oil pumped from wells in Texas is "mine".
The US has not nationalized uranium mining.
I see. So they own the mining rights, but not the uranium. How then will they sell it for profit once extracted? They can only sell to America? Of this I don't know.
I do know that Uranium is not like oil because of it's potential to be weaponized. It has and always will be a National Security resource, which is why it required approval in the first place. So, if we have to apply the same standards, then the same of a Canadian satellite technology company to China should be allowed. We all know the reality of communist countries, and thus it shouldn't be allowed.
From the original article which I have read before:
Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation Amid Russian Uranium Deal
Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation Amid Russian Uranium Deal
As the Russians gradually assumed control of Uranium One in three separate transactions from 2009 to 2013, Canadian records show, a flow of cash made its way to the Clinton Foundation. 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.
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.
At the time, both Rosatom and the United States government made promises intended to ease concerns about ceding control of the company’s assets to the Russians. Those promises have been repeatedly broken, records show.
The New York Times’s examination of the Uranium One deal is based on dozens of interviews, as well as a review of public records and securities filings in Canada,
Russia and the United States. Some of the connections between Uranium One and the Clinton Foundation were unearthed by Peter Schweizer, a former fellow at the right-leaning Hoover Institution and author of
the forthcoming book “Clinton Cash.” Mr. Schweizer provided a preview of material in the book to The Times, which scrutinized his information and built upon it with its own reporting.
Whether the donations played any role in the approval of the uranium deal is unknown. But the episode underscores the special ethical challenges presented by the Clinton Foundation, headed by a former president who relied heavily on foreign cash to accumulate $250 million in assets even as his wife helped steer American foreign policy as secretary of state, presiding over decisions with the potential to benefit the foundation’s donors.
