Smoke Screen

      

      Let's make several general assumptions about our devout Far Right devotees regarding truth, reality and critical thinking. I believe that their grasps of these concepts are, in the same order, "Fake", manufactured and beyond their grasp.

       The latest manifestation of these disabilities is the entire fecal hurricane of "mis" and "dis" information surrounding the 2010 sale of partial interest in a Canadian uranium mining corporation by Canadians to Russians. The crux of the disinformation campaign is the allegation that, then SecState, Hillary Clinton 1) had some influence over the sale. and 2) benefited from it. Reread that last part and understand what the Breitbart and Faux News meat puppets would like to you disregard, that being, that the issue revolves around two independent nations, neither of which is the United States, consummating a commercial transaction.

Several absolute truths are incontestably involved here.

First:

       Uranium One, which holds mining contracts in several western states is a Canadian corporation, which also mines in Canada. The chronology of said mining operations concessions are difficult to trace chronologically, but predate the Obama administration. In fact, Uranium One is South African in origin and merged, during the Bush 43 administration, with Canadian held UrAsia energy, out of Vancouver B.C. A Russian corporation, Rosatom, made, and had accepted, several offers over time which eventually resulted by 2010, in Rosatom owning Uranium One as a subsidiary.

       Rosatom, sells uranium to civilian power reactors in the United States, according to the Energy Information Administration. But then, U.S. owners and operators of commercial nuclear reactors purchase, and historically have purchased, the majority of their uranium from foreign sources. Only 11 percent of the 50.6 million pounds purchased in 2016 came from U.S. domestic producers.

       Although Uranium One once held 20 percent of licensed uranium in-situ (in the ground) recovery production capacity in the U.S., that’s no longer the case. It is broken out as "in situ" because an alternative source of fuel is, or should be, reprocessed fissionable material from "spent" reactor fuel. recovered and reprocessed from expended cores. Unfortunately, although the UK has been doing this for 50 years successfully, and France for 35, the US lags for a number of reasons better explained in another essay.

       There were only four in-situ recovery facilities licensed by the NRC in 2010. Currently, there are 10 such facilities, so Uranium One’s mining operations now account for only an estimated 10 percent of in-situ recovery production capacity in the U.S.

       This is analogous to US Oil companies producing oil in other nations and selling it, which happened for most of the 20th century, and with which most Americans had no issue.

       As for production, Uranium One was responsible for only about 11 percent of U.S. uranium production in 2014, according to 2015 Congressional testimony by a Department of Energy contractor. More recently, Uranium One has been responsible for less than 6 percent of domestic production, according to a September 2017 report by the U.S. International Trade Commission. So in brief summary, all this is about less than 6% of the current US domestic Uranium production.

Second:

       The Senate Committee on Foreign Investment in the USA, established 42 years ago by President Ford, has zero ability to nix such a sale. In a very strange context, they can "bless" such a transaction, but are powerless to stop it, as one would expect when both parties to said sale are other nations. It is rather like a couple eloping and asking for parental blessing, but leaving in any case. The Committee can only recommend that the President stop such a transaction. In considerations such as this, the "blessing" (a mere courtesy, not permission, mind you, since none is required) involves the Committee and several cabinet posts giving a cheery wave to the process or weighing in with their disapproval if any. Remember, it doesn't matter, because the two parties can still do the deal, regardless, unless POTUS halts it. The Cabinet level weigh ins are generally not even brought to the level of the department head, since there is no negative action which can ensue as a result. It is important to remember that, since the allegations of a Clinton quid pro quo for her blessing would have been of no consequence. Historically, from 2005 to 2015, only one such Presidential "veto" was issued, that in 2012 by President Obama and, like most reviews, revolved around technology transfer concerns.

Third:

       Even if the Committee's decision (to "bless" or not to bless") mattered, and it wasn't contentious,  Clinton as SecState was one of the lesser voices which would have had influence, since the Committee by statute is chaired by the Treasury Secretary and the slate of Cabinet heads includes, Homeland Security, Justice, Defense, Commerce, Energy, Treasury. Of the above persons, all except SecDef Gates (a Bush 43 appointee) were confirmed by majorities of the Republican controlled Senate, most of them overwhelmingly, including Energy Secretary Steven Chu whose confirmation was unanimous. I mention this because of all the above, Chu was the most directly involved with the issue. Even so, the Committee gave their assent to the concept of the sale as did every single Executive Branch department involved! It is noteworthy that Reagan actually refused to quash a merger when strenuously urged to do so by both Treasury and Defense department heads, making him the only President to refuse such advice.

Fourth:

       If one understands the implications of all the above, the alleged quid pro quo (cash to the Clinton Global Initiative foundation for a Clinton approval), seems like a fool's bargain for Rosatom, especially since, even if Clinton had screamed "no" and held her breath, it just didn't matter. As it turns out it wasn't actually discussed with her, but was, as was customary in such instances, signed off on, after review, by a subordinate.

Fifth and finally:

       As much as the far rightists would love to besmirch the Clinton Foundation, the reality is that, markedly unlike the Trump Foundation, their books are, and have been, open for 15 years, and every charity rating organization in America gives, and has consistently given, them top marks for transparency, utilization of funds, and the percentage of income allocated to administration (very low, by comparison with similar others) and the efficacy of program dollars applied to the relevant causes. In all this is buried the fact that as much as the Right media have tried to do so, there is zero evidence that either Clinton has ever personally benefited from Foundation contributions. I believe this to be particularly disturbing to the talking heads of the Right because the Trump Foundation and its record of Trump spending other people's money on himself look positively shitty and venal by comparison.

       So why all the uproar now? It's simple, really. In light of an increasing stream of real hard data linking Trump, his son, his son in law, his chief of staff and himself to Russian interests, it's a smoke screen to deflect  observers from the truth, that truth being the utter moral and ethical bankruptcy of the current administration. Period.