Uranium One Informant Gives Explosive Testimony

6
Share

William D. Campbell, the Uranium One informant, gave what is being described as explosive testimony.

We know that Russian President Putin wanted to corner the world’s uranium supply. Common sense should have told the officials in the Obama administration that giving Putin control of 20% of U.S. uranium and buying and selling rights of atomic fuels is lunacy. That’s without considering the corruption and bribery the Russians were engaging in throughout our country. Yet our administration went ahead and sold our mine and assets, knowing it would end up in Putin’s control in the end.

The following quotes come from Investigative reporter Sara Carter.

Mr. Campbell testified that Russia was hiding the fact that they were giving aid to Iran to sustain its nuclear industry.

“He [Campbell] gave explosive testimony on his years as an undercover informant providing information to the FBI on Russian criminal networks operating in the United States. He also contends in his testimony, and written briefs, to the FBI that Russia attempted to hide its ongoing aid to help sustain Iran’s nuclear industry, at the time the Obama administration approved the sale of 20 percent of U.S. uranium mining rights to Russia.

All the agencies that approved the uranium mine sale knew of Russia’s plan to acquire the Canadian company. This information made it into then-president Obama’s daily briefings twice.

“Senior members of the FBI, Department of Treasury, Department of Energy and Department of Justice were also briefed on Campbell’s information and were apprised of the various facets pertaining to Russia’s acquisition of the Canadian company. In fact, Campbell had been told by his FBI handlers that his work had made it at least twice into President Obama’s classified presidential daily briefings.”

Russians had reason to rush ahead:

“The Russians expressed a sense of urgency to secure new U.S. uranium business because they knew that the two-decades-old “Megatons to Megawatts” program would cease in 2013,” Campbell said. “Then Russia would no longer be guaranteed a market to sell recycled nuclear warhead materials as peaceful reactor fuel in the United States. I gathered evidence for the FBI by moving closer and closer to the Russians’ key nuclear industry players, including those inside the United States and high-ranking Russian officials who would visit.”

With all that evidence, Obama’s administration – the Committee on Foreign Investment in the U.S. – approved the sale of the mine and its assets in the fall of 2010.

It increased Russia’s rights over buying and selling atomic fuels in the U.S.

Carter quotes Mr. Campbell further:

“I was speechless and angry in October 2010 when CFIUS approved the Uranium One sale to Rosatom. I was deeply worried that TLI continued to transport sensitive urranium despite the fact that it had been compromised by the bribery scheme,” stated Campbell in his testimony to lawmakers. “I expressed these concerns repeatedly to my FBI handlers. The response I got was that “politics” was somehow involved. I remember one response I got from an agent when I asked how it was possible CFIUS would approve the Uranium One sale when the FBI could prove Rosatom was engaged in criminal conduct. His answer: “Ask your politics.”

This is no longer a political story. This is corruption in government no American should accept.

Share

6 COMMENTS

  1. I wanted to hear what Sara and Victoria had to say on the matter while on Hannity but I just got fed up with him. For a host to have a guest on that is ‘on the same page’ he is the rudest person I’ve seen, with his constant interruptions. A guest has to talk over him to finish a point, and the women on there are too considerate to talk over him. I finally got to the point of asking, why not just take Sara Carter’s report and just read the entire damn thing yourself. “Will you just Shut Up Sean!!!”. He can just extend his 20 minute monologue.

    • Spot on. Hannity’s show would be great if he wasn’t on it. Woeful interviewing technique, always wants to the center of attention, look at me, look at me, I know the answer miss.

  2. Oftentimes Hannity is like a puerile adult who just can’t resist interrupting conversation to hear himself repeat himself. He goes through the same litany of numbers over and over and over. I like his views but I hate his methods…and his refusal to let a person he is interviewing complete their answers. I cannot count the number of times he has used the phrase “besmear and besmirch”. Learn how to STFU now and then, Hannity.

  3. I think he was actually better in the days of Hannity and Combs. Alan was a staunch liberal but did seem to have common sense. He would sometime concede a certain issue. And because of that I think Hannity also seemed more reasonable. Nowadays he’s become such a partisan hack it’s unbearable to listen to. I quit listening to his radio show because it was day after day the same “exact” talking points in a recitation. As an experiment I muted each time he spoke and the mute was on most of the time. So what’s the point of having guests then.

    What I want is “information”, and it’s like “you’re not going to get it”. Well, “by hook or crook I will”, by reading instead.

  4. Hannity is one of the very few media people to report early on the scandals. He has collected a group of heroic reporters to appear on his show. He was the first to cover the FISA abuse on TV. I can tolerate his enthusiasm.

    We went through a bad period on Fox with O’Reilly and Kelly glossing over major issues and taking the liberal line often. It reached a tipping point in August 2015 with the disgraceful debate. Now we have 4 hours of decent shows weeknights on Fox.

    • Amen brother!

      I agree that Sean is hard to take when he does not let his guests finish. However, I do believe that he is just enthusiastic and not after the spotlight or simply saying ‘look at me’. Heck, he has 4 hours of media every day. He already IS in the spotlight.

Leave a Reply to Greg Cancel reply