Davin News Server

On Fri, 13 Sep 2024 14:24:43 -0700,  Alan says...  

> > Non sequitur to actual ELECTION interference, dumb fuck.
> 
> And you drag the goalposts
> 
> You said:
> 
> 'Think Trump "colluded" with Russia.'

Colluded to do what, exactly?

And HOW did it persuade voters and/or electors?

Hillary won the popular vote, so this "collusion" did NOTHING, except expose you liars.

And what about Hillary's collusion?

She colluded with Russian AND all the people responsible for the Big Lie: The Steele Dossier

Mainly a fucking SPY.

=====

How Did So Much Of The Media Get The Steele Dossier So Wrong?

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/15/opinion/steele-dossier.html

Nov 15, 2021 - Then, this month, a primary source of Mr. Steele's was arrested and charged with lying to the 
F.B.I. about how he obtained information that appeared in the dossier. Prosecutors say that the ...

=====

Newly Declassified Document Indicates FBI Misled Congress on Reliability of Steele Dossier

https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/press/rep/releases/newly-declassified-document-indicates-fbi-misled-
congress-on-reliability-of-steele-dossier/

WASHINGTON - Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina) Today -  released a newly 
declassified FBI document that indicates the Bureau misled the Senate Intelligence Committee in 2018 about 
the Steele dossier's Primary Sub-source and, therefore, the reliability of the

=====

Trump-Russia Steele Dossier Analyst Charged With Lying To FBI - BBC

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-59168626

The so-called Steele Dossier was used by the FBI to obtain surveillance warrants on a top Trump aide. The 
document was held up by Democrats to paint Mr Trump as a Russian puppet, a narrative ...

=============================================================================================================

Hillary Clinton colluded with Russia's Putin.

https://i.imgur.com/vIFOdKN.png
https://i.imgur.com/pIMc3DI.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/1HQNo7r.png
https://i.imgur.com/pWbZPrK.jpg

Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation Amid Russian Uranium Deal

The headline on the website Pravda trumpeted President Vladimir V. Putin's latest coup, its nationalistic 
fervor recalling an era when its precursor served as the official mouthpiece of the Kremlin: "Russian Nuclear 
Energy Conquers the World."

The article detailed how the Russian atomic energy agency, Rosatom, had taken over a Canadian company with 
uranium-mining stakes stretching from Central Asia to the American West. The deal made Rosatom one of the 
world's largest uranium producers and brought Mr. Putin closer to his goal of controlling much of the global 
uranium supply chain.

But the untold story behind that story is one that involves not just the Russian president, but also a former 
American president and a woman who would like to be the next one.

At the heart of the tale are several men, leaders of the Canadian mining industry, who have been major donors 
to the charitable endeavors of former President Bill Clinton and his family. Members of that group built, 
financed and eventually sold off to the Russians a company that would become known as Uranium One.

Beyond mines in Kazakhstan that are among the most lucrative in the world, the sale gave the Russians control 
of one-fifth of all uranium production capacity in the United States. Since uranium is considered a strategic 
asset, with implications for national security, the deal had to be approved by a committee composed of 
representatives from a number of United States government agencies. Among the agencies that eventually signed 
off was the State Department, then headed by Mr. Clinton's wife, Hillary Rodham Clinton.

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.

Frank Giustra, right, a mining financier, has donated $31.3 million to the foundation run by former President 
Bill Clinton, left.

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' 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.

In a statement, Brian Fallon, a spokesman for Mrs. Clinton's presidential campaign, said no one "has ever 
produced a shred of evidence supporting the theory that Hillary Clinton ever took action as secretary of 
state to support the interests of donors to the Clinton Foundation." He emphasized that multiple United 
States agencies, as well as the Canadian government, had signed off on the deal and that, in general, such 
matters were handled at a level below the secretary. "To suggest the State Department, under then-Secretary 
Clinton, exerted undue influence in the U.S. government's review of the sale of Uranium One is utterly 
baseless," he added.

American political campaigns are barred from accepting foreign donations. But foreigners may give to 
foundations in the United States. In the days since Mrs. Clinton announced her candidacy for president, the 
Clinton Foundation has announced changes meant to quell longstanding concerns about potential conflicts of 
interest in such donations; it has limited donations from foreign governments, with many, like Russia's, 
barred from giving to all but its health care initiatives. That policy stops short of a more stringent 
agreement between Mrs. Clinton and the Obama administration that was in effect while she was secretary of 
state.

Either way, the Uranium One deal highlights the limits of such prohibitions. The foundation will continue to 
accept contributions from foreign sources whose interests, like Uranium One's, may overlap with those of 
foreign governments, some of which may be at odds with the United States.

When the Uranium One deal was approved, the geopolitical backdrop was far different from today's. The Obama 
administration was seeking to "reset" strained relations with Russia. The deal was strategically important to 
Mr. Putin, who shortly after the Americans gave their blessing sat down for a staged interview with Rosatom's 
chief executive, Sergei Kiriyenko. "Few could have imagined in the past that we would own 20 percent of U.S. 
reserves," Mr. Kiriyenko told Mr. Putin.

Donations to the Clinton Foundation, and a Russian Uranium Takeover

Uranium investors gave millions to the Clinton Foundation while Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton's 
office was involved in approving a Russian bid for mining assets in Kazakhstan and the United States.

Now, after Russia's annexation of Crimea and aggression in Ukraine, the Moscow-Washington relationship is 
devolving toward Cold War levels, a point several experts made in evaluating a deal so beneficial to Mr. 
Putin, a man known to use energy resources to project power around the world.

"Should we be concerned? Absolutely," said Michael McFaul, who served under Mrs. Clinton as the American 
ambassador to Russia but said he had been unaware of the Uranium One deal until asked about it. "Do we want 
Putin to have a monopoly on this? Of course we don't. We don't want to be dependent on Putin for anything in 
this climate."

A Seat at the Table

The path to a Russian acquisition of American uranium deposits began in 2005 in Kazakhstan, where the 
Canadian mining financier Frank Giustra orchestrated his first big uranium deal, with Mr. Clinton at his 
side.

The two men had flown aboard Mr. Giustra's private jet to Almaty, Kazakhstan, where they dined with the 
authoritarian president, Nursultan A. Nazarbayev. Mr. Clinton handed the Kazakh president a propaganda coup 
when he expressed support for Mr. Nazarbayev's bid to head an international elections monitoring group, 
undercutting American foreign policy and criticism of Kazakhstan's poor human rights record by, among others, 
his wife, then a senator.

Within days of the visit, Mr. Giustra's fledgling company, UrAsia Energy Ltd., signed a preliminary deal 
giving it stakes in three uranium mines controlled by the state-run uranium agency Kazatomprom.

If the Kazakh deal was a major victory, UrAsia did not wait long before resuming the hunt. In 2007, it merged 
with Uranium One, a South African company with assets in Africa and Australia, in what was described as a 
$3.5 billion transaction. The new company, which kept the Uranium One name, was controlled by UrAsia 
investors including Ian Telfer, a Canadian who became chairman. Through a spokeswoman, Mr. Giustra, whose 
personal stake in the deal was estimated at about $45 million, said he sold his stake in 2007.

Soon, Uranium One began to snap up companies with assets in the United States. In April 2007, it announced 
the purchase of a uranium mill in Utah and more than 38,000 acres of uranium exploration properties in four 
Western states, followed quickly by the acquisition of the Energy Metals Corporation and its uranium holdings 
in Wyoming, Texas and Utah. That deal made clear that Uranium One was intent on becoming "a powerhouse in the 
United States uranium sector with the potential to become the domestic supplier of choice for U.S. 
utilities," the company declared.

Ian Telfer was chairman of Uranium One and made large donations to the Clinton Foundation.

Still, the company's story was hardly front-page news in the United States - until early 2008, in the midst 
of Mrs. Clinton's failed presidential campaign, when The Times published an article revealing the 2005 trip's 
link to Mr. Giustra's Kazakhstan mining deal. It also reported that several months later, Mr. Giustra had 
donated $31.3 million to Mr. Clinton's foundation.

(In a statement issued after this article appeared online, Mr. Giustra said he was "extremely proud" of his 
charitable work with Mr. Clinton, and he urged the media to focus on poverty, health care and "the real 
challenges of the world.")

Though the 2008 article quoted the former head of Kazatomprom, Moukhtar Dzhakishev, as saying that the deal 
required government approval and was discussed at a dinner with the president, Mr. Giustra insisted that it 
was a private transaction, with no need for Mr. Clinton's influence with Kazakh officials. He described his 
relationship with Mr. Clinton as motivated solely by a shared interest in philanthropy.

As if to underscore the point, five months later Mr. Giustra held a fund-raiser for the Clinton Giustra 
Sustainable Growth Initiative, a project aimed at fostering progressive environmental and labor practices in 
the natural resources industry, to which he had pledged $100 million. The star-studded gala, at a conference 
center in Toronto, featured performances by Elton John and Shakira and celebrities like Tom Cruise, John 
Travolta and Robin Williams encouraging contributions from the many so-called F.O.F.s - Friends of Frank - in 
attendance, among them Mr. Telfer. In all, the evening generated $16 million in pledges, according to an 
article in The Globe and Mail.

"None of this would have been possible if Frank Giustra didn't have a remarkable combination of caring and 
modesty, of vision and energy and iron determination," Mr. Clinton told those gathered, adding: "I love this 
guy, and you should, too."

But what had been a string of successes was about to hit a speed bump.

Arrest and Progress

By June 2009, a little over a year after the star-studded evening in Toronto, Uranium One's stock was in 
free-fall, down 40 percent. Mr. Dzhakishev, the head of Kazatomprom, had just been arrested on charges that 
he illegally sold uranium deposits to foreign companies, including at least some of those won by Mr. 
Giustra's UrAsia and now owned by Uranium One.

Publicly, the company tried to reassure shareholders. Its chief executive, Jean Nortier, issued a confident 
statement calling the situation a "complete misunderstanding." He also contradicted Mr. Giustra's contention 
that the uranium deal had not required government blessing. "When you do a transaction in Kazakhstan, you 
need the government's approval," he said, adding that UrAsia had indeed received that approval.

Bill Clinton met with Vladimir V. Putin in Moscow in 2010.

But privately, Uranium One officials were worried they could lose their joint mining ventures. American 
diplomatic cables made public by WikiLeaks also reflect concerns that Mr. Dzhakishev's arrest was part of a 
Russian power play for control of Kazakh uranium assets.

At the time, Russia was already eying a stake in Uranium One, Rosatom company documents show. Rosatom 
officials say they were seeking to acquire mines around the world because Russia lacks sufficient domestic 
reserves to meet its own industry needs.

It was against this backdrop that the Vancouver-based Uranium One pressed the American Embassy in Kazakhstan, 
as well as Canadian diplomats, to take up its cause with Kazakh officials, according to the American cables.

"We want more than a statement to the press," Paul Clarke, a Uranium One executive vice president, told the 
embassy's energy officer on June 10, the officer reported in a cable. "That is simply chitchat." What the 
company needed, Mr. Clarke said, was official written confirmation that the licenses were valid.

The American Embassy ultimately reported to the secretary of state, Mrs. Clinton. Though the Clarke cable was 
copied to her, it was given wide circulation, and it is unclear if she would have read it; the Clinton 
campaign did not address questions about the cable.

What is clear is that the embassy acted, with the cables showing that the energy officer met with Kazakh 
officials to discuss the issue on June 10 and 11.

Three days later, a wholly owned subsidiary of Rosatom completed a deal for 17 percent of Uranium One. And 
within a year, the Russian government substantially upped the ante, with a generous offer to shareholders 
that would give it a 51 percent controlling stake. But first, Uranium One had to get the American government 
to sign off on the deal.

Among the Donors to the Clinton Foundation

Frank Giustra

$31.3 million and a pledge for $100 million more

He built a company that later merged with Uranium One.

Ian Telfer

$2.35 million

Mining investor who was chairman of Uranium One when an arm of the Russian government, Rosatom, acquired it.

Paul Reynolds

$1 million to $5 million

Adviser on 2007 UrAsia-Uranium One merger. Later helped raise $260 million for the company.

Frank Holmes

$250,000 to $500,000

Chief Executive of U.S. Global Investors Inc., which held $4.7 million in Uranium One shares in the first 
quarter of 2011.

Neil Woodyer

$50,000 to $100,000

Adviser to Uranium One. Founded Endeavour Mining with Mr. Giustra.

GMP Securities Ltd.

Donating portion of profits

Worked on debt issue that raised $260 million for Uranium One.

The Power to Say No

When a company controlled by the Chinese government sought a 51 percent stake in a tiny Nevada gold mining 
operation in 2009, it set off a secretive review process in Washington, where officials raised concerns 
primarily about the mine's proximity to a military installation, but also about the potential for minerals at 
the site, including uranium, to come under Chinese control. The officials killed the deal.

Such is the power of the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States. The committee comprises some 
of the most powerful members of the cabinet, including the attorney general, the secretaries of the Treasury, 
Defense, Homeland Security, Commerce and Energy, and the secretary of state. They are charged with reviewing 
any deal that could result in foreign control of an American business or asset deemed important to national 
security.

The national security issue at stake in the Uranium One deal was not primarily about nuclear weapons 
proliferation; the United States and Russia had for years cooperated on that front, with Russia sending 
enriched fuel from decommissioned warheads to be used in American nuclear power plants in return for raw 
uranium.

Instead, it concerned American dependence on foreign uranium sources. While the United States gets one-fifth 
of its electrical power from nuclear plants, it produces only around 20 percent of the uranium it needs, and 
most plants have only 18 to 36 months of reserves, according to Marin Katusa, author of "The Colder War: How 
the Global Energy Trade Slipped From America's Grasp."

"The Russians are easily winning the uranium war, and nobody's talking about it," said Mr. Katusa, who 
explores the implications of the Uranium One deal in his book. "It's not just a domestic issue but a foreign 
policy issue, too."

When ARMZ, an arm of Rosatom, took its first 17 percent stake in Uranium One in 2009, the two parties signed 
an agreement, found in securities filings, to seek the foreign investment committee's review. But it was the 
2010 deal, giving the Russians a controlling 51 percent stake, that set off alarm bells. Four members of the 
House of Representatives signed a letter expressing concern. Two more began pushing legislation to kill the 
deal.

Senator John Barrasso, a Republican from Wyoming, where Uranium One's largest American operation was, wrote 
to President Obama, saying the deal "would give the Russian government control over a sizable portion of 
America's uranium production capacity."

President Putin during a meeting with Rosatomandrsquo's chief executive, Sergei Kiriyenko, in December 2007.

"Equally alarming," Mr. Barrasso added, "this sale gives ARMZ a significant stake in uranium mines in 
Kazakhstan."

Uranium One's shareholders were also alarmed, and were "afraid of Rosatom as a Russian state giant," Sergei 
Novikov, a company spokesman, recalled in an interview. He said Rosatom's chief, Mr. Kiriyenko, sought to 
reassure Uranium One investors, promising that Rosatom would not break up the company and would keep the same 
management, including Mr. Telfer, the chairman. Another Rosatom official said publicly that it did not intend 
to increase its investment beyond 51 percent, and that it envisioned keeping Uranium One a public company

American nuclear officials, too, seemed eager to assuage fears. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission wrote to 
Mr. Barrasso assuring him that American uranium would be preserved for domestic use, regardless of who owned 
it.

"In order to export uranium from the United States, Uranium One Inc. or ARMZ would need to apply for and 
obtain a specific NRC license authorizing the export of uranium for use as reactor fuel," the letter said.

Still, the ultimate authority to approve or reject the Russian acquisition rested with the cabinet officials 
on the foreign investment committee, including Mrs. Clinton - whose husband was collecting millions in 
donations from people associated with Uranium One.

Undisclosed Donations

Before Mrs. Clinton could assume her post as secretary of state, the White House demanded that she sign a 
memorandum of understanding placing limits on the activities of her husband's foundation. To avoid the 
perception of conflicts of interest, beyond the ban on foreign government donations, the foundation was 
required to publicly disclose all contributors.

To judge from those disclosures - which list the contributions in ranges rather than precise amounts - the 
only Uranium One official to give to the Clinton Foundation was Mr. Telfer, the chairman, and the amount was 
relatively small: no more than $250,000, and that was in 2007, before talk of a Rosatom deal began 
percolating.

Uranium Oneandrsquo's Russian takeover was approved by the United States while Hillary Rodham Clinton was 
secretary of state.

Uranium One's Russian takeover was approved by the United States while Hillary Rodham Clinton was secretary 
of state.Credit... Doug Mills/The New York Times

But a review of tax records in Canada, where Mr. Telfer has a family charity called the Fernwood Foundation, 
shows that he donated millions of dollars more, during and after the critical time when the foreign 
investment committee was reviewing his deal with the Russians. With the Russians offering a special dividend, 
shareholders like Mr. Telfer stood to profit.

His donations through the Fernwood Foundation included $1 million reported in 2009, the year his company 
appealed to the American Embassy to help it keep its mines in Kazakhstan; $250,000 in 2010, the year the 
Russians sought majority control; as well as $600,000 in 2011 and $500,000 in 2012. Mr. Telfer said that his 
donations had nothing to do with his business dealings, and that he had never discussed Uranium One with Mr. 
or Mrs. Clinton. He said he had given the money because he wanted to support Mr. Giustra's charitable 
endeavors with Mr. Clinton. "Frank and I have been friends and business partners for almost 20 years," he 
said.

The Clinton campaign left it to the foundation to reply to questions about the Fernwood donations; the 
foundation did not provide a response.

Mr. Telfer's undisclosed donations came in addition to between $1.3 million and $5.6 million in 
contributions, which were reported, from a constellation of people with ties to Uranium One or UrAsia, the 
company that originally acquired Uranium One's most valuable asset: the Kazakh mines. Without those assets, 
the Russians would have had no interest in the deal: "It wasn't the goal to buy the Wyoming mines. The goal 
was to acquire the Kazakh assets, which are very good," Mr. Novikov, the Rosatom spokesman, said in an 
interview.

Amid this influx of Uranium One-connected money, Mr. Clinton was invited to speak in Moscow in June 2010, the 
same month Rosatom struck its deal for a majority stake in Uranium One.

The $500,000 fee - among Mr. Clinton's highest - was paid by Renaissance Capital, a Russian investment bank 
with ties to the Kremlin that has invited world leaders, including Tony Blair, the former British prime 
minister, to speak at its investor conferences.

Renaissance Capital analysts talked up Uranium One's stock, assigning it a "buy" rating and saying in a July 
2010 research report that it was "the best play" in the uranium markets. In addition, Renaissance Capital 
turned up that same year as a major donor, along with Mr. Giustra and several companies linked to Uranium One 
or UrAsia, to a small medical charity in Colorado run by a friend of Mr. Giustra's. In a newsletter to 
supporters, the friend credited Mr. Giustra with helping get donations from "businesses around the world."

John Christensen sold the mining rights on his ranch in Wyoming to Uranium One.

Renaissance Capital would not comment on the genesis of Mr. Clinton's speech to an audience that included 
leading Russian officials, or on whether it was connected to the Rosatom deal. According to a Russian 
government news service, Mr. Putin personally thanked Mr. Clinton for speaking.

A person with knowledge of the Clinton Foundation's fund-raising operation, who requested anonymity to speak 
candidly about it, said that for many people, the hope is that money will in fact buy influence: "Why do you 
think they are doing it - because they love them?" But whether it actually does is another question. And in 
this case, there were broader geopolitical pressures that likely came into play as the United States 
considered whether to approve the Rosatom-Uranium One deal.

Diplomatic Considerations

If doing business with Rosatom was good for those in the Uranium One deal, engaging with Russia was also a 
priority of the incoming Obama administration, which was hoping for a new era of cooperation as Mr. Putin 
relinquished the presidency - if only for a term - to Dmitri A. Medvedev.

"The assumption was we could engage Russia to further core U.S. national security interests," said Mr. 
McFaul, the former ambassador.

It started out well. The two countries made progress on nuclear proliferation issues, and expanded use of 
Russian territory to resupply American forces in Afghanistan. Keeping Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon 
was among the United States' top priorities, and in June 2010 Russia signed off on a United Nations 
resolution imposing tough new sanctions on that country.

Two months later, the deal giving ARMZ a controlling stake in Uranium One was submitted to the Committee on 
Foreign Investment in the United States for review. Because of the secrecy surrounding the process, it is 
hard to know whether the participants weighed the desire to improve bilateral relations against the potential 
risks of allowing the Russian government control over the biggest uranium producer in the United States. The 
deal was ultimately approved in October, following what two people involved in securing the approval said had 
been a relatively smooth process.

Not all of the committee's decisions are personally debated by the agency heads themselves; in less 
controversial cases, deputy or assistant secretaries may sign off. But experts and former committee members 
say Russia's interest in Uranium One and its American uranium reserves seemed to warrant attention at the 
highest levels.

Moukhtar Dzhakishev was arrested in 2009 while the chief of Kazatomprom.

Moukhtar Dzhakishev was arrested in 2009 while the chief of Kazatomprom.

"This deal had generated press, it had captured the attention of Congress and it was strategically 
important," said Richard Russell, who served on the committee during the George W. Bush administration. "When 
I was there invariably any one of those conditions would cause this to get pushed way up the chain, and here 
you had all three."

And Mrs. Clinton brought a reputation for hawkishness to the process; as a senator, she was a vocal critic of 
the committee's approval of a deal that would have transferred the management of major American seaports to a 
company based in the United Arab Emirates, and as a presidential candidate she had advocated legislation to 
strengthen the process.

The Clinton campaign spokesman, Mr. Fallon, said that in general, these matters did not rise to the 
secretary's level. He would not comment on whether Mrs. Clinton had been briefed on the matter, but he gave 
The Times a statement from the former assistant secretary assigned to the foreign investment committee at the 
time, Jose Fernandez. While not addressing the specifics of the Uranium One deal, Mr. Fernandez said, "Mrs. 
Clinton never intervened with me on any C.F.I.U.S. matter."

Mr. Fallon also noted that if any agency had raised national security concerns about the Uranium One deal, it 
could have taken them directly to the president.

Anne-Marie Slaughter, the State Department's director of policy planning at the time, said she was unaware of 
the transaction - or the extent to which it made Russia a dominant uranium supplier. But speaking generally, 
she urged caution in evaluating its wisdom in hindsight.

"Russia was not a country we took lightly at the time or thought was cuddly," she said. "But it wasn't the 
adversary it is today."

That renewed adversarial relationship has raised concerns about European dependency on Russian energy 
resources, including nuclear fuel. The unease reaches beyond diplomatic circles. In Wyoming, where Uranium 
One equipment is scattered across his 35,000-acre ranch, John Christensen is frustrated that repeated changes 
in corporate ownership over the years led to French, South African, Canadian and, finally, Russian control 
over mining rights on his property.

"I hate to see a foreign government own mining rights here in the United States," he said. "I don't think 
that should happen."

Mr. Christensen, 65, noted that despite assurances by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission that uranium could 
not leave the country without Uranium One or ARMZ obtaining an export license - which they do not have - 
yellowcake from his property was routinely packed into drums and trucked off to a processing plant in Canada.

Asked about that, the commission confirmed that Uranium One has, in fact, shipped yellowcake to Canada even 
though it does not have an export license. Instead, the transport company doing the shipping, RSB Logistic 
Services, has the license. A commission spokesman said that "to the best of our knowledge" most of the 
uranium sent to Canada for processing was returned for use in the United States. A Uranium One spokeswoman, 
Donna Wichers, said 25 percent had gone to Western Europe and Japan. At the moment, with the uranium market 
in a downturn, nothing is being shipped from the Wyoming mines.

The "no export" assurance given at the time of the Rosatom deal is not the only one that turned out to be 
less than it seemed. Despite pledges to the contrary, Uranium One was delisted from the Toronto Stock 
Exchange and taken private. As of 2013, Rosatom's subsidiary, ARMZ, owned 100 percent of it.