“This site is dedicated to preying on peoples vanity, ignorance, or loneliness, gaining their trust and betraying them without remorse.”

Sunday, July 23, 2017

The Real Russian Scandal: The un-investigated story that involves the Russian President, President Bill Clinton and Secretary Hillary Clinton

Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation Amid Russian Uranium Deal





A Uranium One sign that points to a 35,000-acre ranch owned by John Christensen, near the town of Gillette, Wyo. Uranium One has the mining rights to Mr. Christensen’s property. Matthew Staver for The New York Times 

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, in January 2013, 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. Joaquin Sarmiento/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images 

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.

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.

Graphic 

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. 
OPEN Graphic 

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. Galit Rodan/Bloomberg, via Getty Images 

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. Mikhail Metzel/Associated Press 

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 

$31.3 million and a pledge for $100 million more
He built a company that later merged with Uranium One.
Mining investor who was chairman of Uranium One when an arm of the Russian government, Rosatom, acquired it.
Adviser on 2007 UrAsia-Uranium One merger. Later helped raise $260 million for the company.
Chief Executive of U.S. Global Investors Inc., which held $4.7 million in Uranium One shares in the first quarter of 2011.
Adviser to Uranium One. Founded Endeavour Mining with Mr. Giustra.
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 Rosatom’s chief executive, Sergei Kiriyenko, in December 2007.Dmitry Astakhov/Ria Novosti, via Agence France-Presse — Getty Images 

“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 One’s Russian takeover was approved by the United States while Hillary Rodham Clinton was secretary of state. 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. Matthew Staver for The New York Times 

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. Daniel Acker/Bloomberg, via Getty Images 

“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.

Correction: April 23, 2015 
An earlier version of this article misstated, in one instance, the surname of a fellow at the Hoover Institution. He is Peter Schweizer, not Schweitzer.
An earlier version also incorrectly described the Clinton Foundation’s agreement with the Obama administration regarding foreign-government donations while Hillary Rodham Clinton was secretary of state. Under the agreement, the foundation would not accept new donations from foreign governments, though it could seek State Department waivers in specific cases. It was not barred from accepting all foreign-government donations.

Correction: April 30, 2015 
An article on Friday about contributions to the Clinton Foundation from people associated with a Canadian uranium-mining company described incorrectly the foundation’s agreement with the Obama administration regarding foreign-government donations while Hillary Clinton was secretary of state. Under the agreement, the foundation would not accept new donations from foreign governments, though it could seek State Department waivers in specific cases. The foundation was not barred from accepting all foreign-government donations.








59 comments:

  1. The Republicans control The House, The Senate and Republican Trump is POTUS yet they allow the criminal organization, Democrat Party, to be on offense.

    ReplyDelete
  2. This should be easy. What is going on?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The Republicans are part of the establishment.

      Delete
  3. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  4. "The video was shocking in Florida, where shocking videos seem like a genre. A group of teenagers laughed and watched as a man struggled in the water of a pond. The man drowned, and his body was not found for days.

    The five teenagers did nothing to help him, not even call 911, but after examining the video the authorities said this week that they did not break the law.

    "In the state of Florida, there is no law in place that requires a person to render aid or call to render aid to a victim in distress," Yvonne Martinez, a spokeswoman for the Cocoa Police Department, said on Friday."

    beta.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/teenagers-record-drowning-man-and-laugh-as-he-dies/article35776559/?ref=https://www.theglobeandmail.com&service=mobile

    Yet another example of Deuce's 'superior culture.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You having reading down pat, however, you need to work on your comprehension and critical thinking. Pausing first to think things through may be helpful. Focus on relevance. Brush up on interpretation, analysis, evaluation, inference, explanation, and self- regulation and then try really hard to tie it together explaining what you think and how you arrived at that judgment.

      Then come back to us.

      Delete
  5. Well, Well, well...

    Angela Merkel is coming under renewed fire over her refugee policies as Germany's election battleground hots up. Left-wing rival Martin Schulz has added his voice to long-term criticism from the right.

    Migrants on boat in Italy (picture-alliance/dpa/C. Fusco)
    For months, Social Democratic (SPD) candidate Martin Schulz has been trying - and failing - to find an issue to eat away at conservative Chancellor Angela Merkel's popularity. In conversation with the Sunday edition of Germany's Bild newspaper, Schulz took aim at what is perhaps Merkel's Achilles heel: her policy toward migrants from Muslim countries.

    "In 2015 more than 1 million refugees came to Germany, mostly without government monitoring," Schulz told Bild. "The chancellor opened our border with Austria for humanitarian reasons but unfortunately without consulting our partners in Europe. If we don't act now, that situation could repeat itself."

    ReplyDelete
  6. TALK ABOUT BEING NAIVE AND YOU USING YOUR HEAD AS AN ANAL PLUG

    Denmark is pledging 91 million Danish kroner ($14 million) to curb the “human and social costs” of unwanted pregnancies in places with poor infrastructure and opportunities for young women. Much of the focus will be on Africa’s least developed countries.

    Danish minister for development cooperation, Ulla Tørnæs, said, “part of the solution to reducing migratory pressures on Europe is to reduce the very high population growth in many African countries.”


    Follow that advise and Denmark should end up with an African population of about 17,000,000.

    ReplyDelete
  7. BUT HOPE IS ON THE WAY

    Like Denmark, Germany has received high numbers of refugees coming to its borders since the crisis in 2015. Chancellor Angela Merkel was criticized by opposition leaders over her open door policy towards refugees and migrants in 2016. But on July 17, Merkel said she wouldn’t set an upper limit on refugees in a live interview on German TV.

    The African invaders are about 90% military age males. The Danes will be handing out birth control pills. Merkel is not going to set limits on The Africans and Muslims. Her solution is to sanction the Poles and Hungarians, threaten Austria, humiliate Italy and stifle German police statistics.

    ReplyDelete
  8. ITALY

    Italian MP Luigi Di Maio accused the EU of leaving Italy alone to handle the migrant crisis

    “The EU has left us alone. If we rule the country, we will try in every way possible to block this arrogance and this selfishness, other than Europeanism. I have seen only selfishness in Europe, France, Germany and other countries all these months, but more today.”

    “We have been welcoming. We are true Europeans. Italians are true Europeans. Sicilians have been welcoming and supportive in all these years, but we are not willing to be the fools of Europe.

    The Italian Ministry of Interior sent representatives to the port on 14 July to establish whether one of the piers could be converted to welcome boats involved in Operation Triton.

    Triton was created by the EU border security agency Frontex in 2014 in an attempt to expand the support network for Southern European countries welcoming a growing influx of migrants.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Sexual assaults by migrants in one German state have almost doubled in one year.

    According to the Ministry of the Interior, asylum seekers committed 482 sexually motivated crimes in 2016, which is reportedly up from 256 in 2015.

    Police say the crimes are mainly being committed by migrants from Afghanistan and Syria.

    The startling figures come to light after a traditional festival in the German state Baden-Wurttemberg, where investigators say many migrants rioted, attacked officers, and sexually assaulted several women.

    German officials say the issues that occurred at the festival are a symbol of what’s happening on a daily basis all over Germany.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Ash, you love the straw man argument. What about bill 89 from your beloved CN government? Care to comment? Are you good with the government taking a child away from parents if they refuse gender reassignment? A 13 year old?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Good luck with that request.

      Delete
    2. You finally got something right Deuce - laughter and mockery is all you guys deserve.

      Delete
    3. Ash, everyone is interested in your answer to MOME's question.

      It's a fair enough question.

      Delete
    4. A Transparent Ass.

      A Shitshow.

      Delete
    5. Bob

      By Robert Spencer on Jul 22, 2017 12:58 pm

      Canada: Prof says “government has absolutely no choice” but to “assist” Islamic State jihadis “to come home”

      These are enemy combatants who joined a group that has repeatedly called upon Muslims to murder non-Muslim civilians, and which considers itself to be at war with Canada and all non-Muslim nations.

      Dawson’s position is tantamount to calling for national suicide.

      Delete
  11. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton used her private email server in hostile countries around the world.

    Remember her bragging about all the traveling she did as SOS?

    Comey's FBI investigators said there was no evidence hackers infiltrated her server.

    How would they know that since Clinton failed to turn over all 13 devices she used to access her private server?

    According to an FBI reports, foreign spy agencies and enemies of the United States, including Russia, quickly became aware Clinton was using an open, unprotected system and did their best to access it.

    At one point, the server was attacked 10 times in just two days.

    When Clinton received emails from aides with details about attacks, she ignored them.

    Hackers obtained emails containing sensitive foreign policy discussions between Clinton and her political advisors.

    When Clinton traveled to Russia, she didn’t bother to tap into the government-protected email system provided by the State Department

    Hillary, the smartest woman ever communicated through her personal unsecured server. Essentially, she left classified U.S. secrets wide open for access.

    Why?

    ReplyDelete
  12. FACT 2010

    Sanctions on Russia were initially blocked by SOS Clinton despite calls from Congress they be implemented.

    2012, sanctions were targeted on a number of Russian officials and individuals close to the government for human rights violations.

    One of the banks under scrutiny was Renaissance Capital.

    Renaissance Capital paid former President Bill Clinton $500,000 to give a speech in Moscow shortly after the State Department, with Hillary in charge, blocked sanctions against the financial institution.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Where is Herr Mueller's curiosity of that?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Nothing? Hello, hello, nothing?

      Let's try this one:

      Bill’s $500,000 Russian speech . The speech payday happened when the State Department, under Hillary, was negotiating a Russian uranium deal with a company better known as Uranium One. Uranium One founders also happened to be Clinton Foundation donors.

      Nothing Herr Mueller?

      Delete
    2. HOW ABOUT THIS, HERR MUELLER AND YOUR SQUAD OF DEMOCRAT CLINTON DONORS?

      Judicial Watch recently published emails belonging to Hillary Clinton, emails previously not turned over to the State Department as required by law. They contained classified information Clinton stored on her private server.

      But, but it gets better.

      They revealed that Clinton was doing favors for a Russia connection group through the Clinton Foundation while serving as Secretary of State.

      ACHTUNG MUELLER!

      by KRISTINA WONG6 Jun 2017

      Hillary Clinton emails recently discovered on Anthony Weiner’s computer revealed, among other things, that as secretary of state, she helped Clinton Foundation donors.

      Clinton aide and Weiner’s wife Huma Abedin connected State Department officials to a Russian cultural organization, per a request by Clinton Foundation donor, Eddie Trump (no relation to President Trump).

      According to a May 10, 2010, email obtained and published by Judicial Watch, Abedin told Doug Band, a Bill Clinton aide who formerly headed the foundation, that she “hooked up” people who recommended Trump to the “right people” at the State Department.

      Trump had apparently recommended that Abedin connect Russian American Foundation Vice President Rina Kirshner with people at the State Department.

      Abedin wrote to Kirshner on Mon, May 10, 2010, at 9:41 PM, “Hi Rina – wanted to connect on meeting at state department. Eddie trump passed on your email. Will be in touch soon.”


      Delete
  14. General Sessions. Investigate Hillary Clinton now. Do the right thing.

    ReplyDelete
  15. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  16. "The low-quality, 2.5-minute cellphone video was provided to The New York Times by Archer's office and earlier obtained by Florida Today. It shows a man flailing in the middle of a body of water as the teenagers describe his struggle and laugh at him from the shore.

    One of the teenagers, using an expletive, calls Dunn a junkie. Someone tells him not to expect any assistance: "Ain't nobody going to help you, you dumb bitch. You shouldn't have got in there," he says."

    So American, so 'superior!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Bill 89 ?

      Your opinion, please, Ash.

      Delete
    2. Nothing I've read in our press shows anything but disgust and contempt for the behavior of those 'kids'.

      Delete
  17. ‘Dunkirk’: Why Didn’t Hitler Go in For the Kill?
    CLIVE IRVING
    07.23.17 12:00 AM ET

    When the outcome of a war is decided in a matter of hours, years before it actually ends, those involved rarely know it.

    So it was in northern France in May 1940.


    (I don't think the outcome of the war was decided at Dunkirk. The Battle of Kursk, Russia is a better bet...Bob)

    At this moment Adolf Hitler was in a position to deliver such a devastating military defeat to the British that they might never have recovered. But Hitler hesitated. His panzer corps – fast-moving tank-led army divisions – had ripped through the defenses of France and Belgium and had trapped the British in a shrinking enclave around the French port of Dunkirk.

    But then, on May 22, the panzers were halted by orders from above, and again on May 23. Just why this happened, and on whose orders, has been disputed for decades by historians.

    What is not disputed is that if the panzers had been allowed to roll onward during those two days they could have driven the opposing British and French forces into the sea. Instead, the allied forces gained just enough time to be evacuated from the beaches of Dunkirk in the epic action now graphically recreated in Christopher Nolan’s movie, Dunkirk.
    Twelve days before the panzers were halted, Winston Churchill had become prime minister. His position, like that of Britain, was tenuous. Without the successful evacuation of what was left of the British Expeditionary Force, BEF, Churchill might well have been out-maneuvered by colleagues ready to do a deal with Hitler.

    As it was, few leaders in history have been saved so dramatically in such a marginal situation as Churchill was in those few hours in May. In 1945, as Hitler faced his own end, he complained that in 1940 he had given Churchill “a sporting chance” that Churchill had failed to reciprocate.

    That was a misreading of Churchill, if not a self-serving revision of history. On May 28, when the feckless Belgian king surrendered to Hitler, Churchill wrote in a telegram: “Our only hope is victory and England will never quit the war whatever happens till Hitler is beat or we cease to be a state.”

    Nonetheless, Hitler and many of those around him knew that some leading politicians and members of the aristocracy in London were having trouble locating their spines. A movement to appease Hitler in the belief that the British and Germans were not natural enemies had grown long before the outbreak of war and was far from expired; indeed, these people now believed that Britain was facing inevitable defeat and that Churchill’s bravado performances in public were more theatrical than rational.

    What exactly had happened on the battlefields in Belgium and France?

    After days of disorganized retreat the BEF had surprised the Germans on May 21 by staging a counterattack, using tanks and infantry, at the edge of the northern French city of Arras.

    That counterattack seems to have unnerved a man who was to become perhaps the most proficient leader of panzer divisions, General Erwin Rommel. Rommel complained to the German commanding general, Field Marshal Gerd von Rundstedt, that his 7th Panzer Division had been attacked by “hundreds of enemy tanks.” In fact, the British had deployed 74 tanks of which only 16 were the latest generation and able to outfight Rommel’s armor.
    But the psychological effect of the unexpected resistance was more powerful than the British tanks. Von Rundstedt, with the support of Hitler, stopped the panzers driving toward Dunkirk and ordered that, first, the resistance at Arras should be dealt with.......

    http://www.thedailybeast.com/the-mystery-left-out-of-christopher-nolans-dunkirk-why-didnt-hitler-go-in-for-the-kill

    ReplyDelete
  18. Still awaiting Ash's reply to MOME's question regarding his support or lack thereof for Bill 89.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. See:

      Doug Sun Jul 23, 05:24:00 PM EDT

      Delete
    2. Yup, good comment.

      Ash, because he doesn't reply, seems to wish to put the family unit at risk as well.

      I find your previous two comments spot on as well.

      :)

      Delete
  19. At this point I think it's fair to say that Baby Charlie Gard has been kidnapped by the British Health Care System, who want to pull his plug.

    None other than President Trump has offered to bring Baby Charlie to the USA for treatment.

    Charlie's parents can truthfully say they will not make any further financial demands on the British Health Care System.

    Surely parents have a fundamental human right to do such a thing especially under these circumstances.

    The parents actually love their child. It is clear the British Health Care System does not.

    The parents want no more 'help' from the British Health Care System.

    I would like to hear the opinion of Ash on this topic as well.



    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I simply cannot fathom the thinking of the British Health Care System in this case.

      Even if they are right and Baby Charlie is 'beyond help' still, with the parents informed consent of course, what is wrong with giving Baby Charlie the chance ?

      Even if it doesn't 'work', something important might be learned from Baby Charlie's experience that might go towards some better solution to the problem for others sometime in the future.

      Never let any government get control of YOUR health care decisions.

      Delete
  20. You will not get a comprehensive argument from him. You're pissing in the wind. Quit pissing or turn around.

    ReplyDelete
  21. So that's why my pants are so wet !

    I was beginning to wonder....

    ReplyDelete
  22. Yes, but ole Ash and his canook buddies will be back down in FL this winter, when it's miserable in Toronto, playing great golf courses, eating great food, being rude to the locals and stiffing the service people. He knows where to find an exceptional and superior culture, in the Good ole USA.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The Canadian folk in British Columbia head to Hawaii.

      They are called 'snow birds'....

      TOP DEFINITION
      snowbird
      1.Irritating old people who come down to Florida from Northern states, drive like maniacs, and should be illegal.
      2.disgustin gold people from northern states who wear speedos on our beaches. God help us all.
      Why don't we have a snowbird hunting season?
      by Tylor September 25, 2003

      Snowbirds
      A seasonal infestation of Yankees (as well as Midwesterners and Canadians) in sunny warm states in the South such as Florida (and also out West in Arizona). A snowbird is an elderly Yankee that migrates down to the South to winter when their natural habitat of New York, Ohio, or Michigan is too cold for them. Their migration begins in early September and lasts until April.

      You can spot a snowbird by it’s white or graying hair color (or sometimes light blue or orange form a dye job gone bad), it’s pastel colored clothes, use of sweaters, socks in sandals or white tennis shoes, dark colored over sized sun glasses, and of course it’s irritating Yankee accent. They tend to drive over sized gas guzzling cars such as Lincolns and Cadillac’s because they are retired and have the money to spend.

      Typically known to drive well under the normal speed in traffic, (about 35 MPH below and in the passing lane) and prone to rubbernecking therefore making places such as Florida the traffic accident capital of the US. Other than making driving conditions terrible for Native Floridians and other Southerners, snowbirds also infest restaurants, post offices, stores, doctor’s office’s by the droves making it next to impossible to get it during the winter months. They in turn complain about how crowded it is and how they have to wait in line.

      Even though tourist traps love snowbirds because of the revenue they bring, most people who are native to the states the snowbirds visit hate them with a passion and wish they’d go home.

      Those damn snowbirds caused another backup on I-75 this morning....

      http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=snowbird

      Delete
    2. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    3. Snowbirds from British Columbia are one reason Doug is holed up in a lava tube on Maui, the other being Doug is the only person on that entire island willing to vote for a Republican.

      Delete
    4. Actually, Maui's got a Republican Mayor!

      ...but he's been Mayor before, and everybody knows he spends like a Democrat, so he's Number F...... One.

      Delete
    5. A Mr Ino......a Maui Republican in name only.

      Delete
    6. Alan Arakawa.

      When I worked for him 20 years ago, his slogan was:

      "Making a Difference!"

      Delete
  23. THE South Australian dubbed “Cocaine Cassie” has been given an ultimatum by Colombian authorities — provide details of the drug-smuggling ring she allegedly worked for, or spend 30 years locked up.

    ...

    If Sainsbury does go through with the deal though it could mean she has to enter a witness protection program to protect her from revenge attacks by members of the drug cartel.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. How a Politician Accused of Drug Trafficking Became Venezuela's ...
      https://www.nytimes.com/.../venezuela-tareck-el-aissami-drugs-sanctions-maduro.html

      Feb 16, 2017 - A Venezuelan drug trafficker in 2010 bragged about his connection to Tareck El ... Mr. El Aissami was involved in narcotics rackets from Colombia to Mexico. ... But President Nicolás Maduro this week vigorously defended his ...

      Illegal drug trade in Venezuela - Wikipedia
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_drug_trade_in_Venezuela
      Illegal drug trade in Venezuela refers to the practice of illegal drug trade in Venezuela. ... In 2012, the United States stated that from that the majority of aircraft related to drug trafficking originate from .... son of President Maduro and that he grew up in the Maduro household while being raised by Maduro's wife, Cilia Flores.

      Two DEA informants in drug case against Maduro's nephews are ...
      www.miamiherald.com/news/nation-world/world/americas/.../article92455092.html

      Jul 28, 2016 - Two informants for the Drug Enforcement Agency were killed after the drug ... to the drug trafficking case of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro's ... involving the shipment of drug cargo from Venezuela to Honduras in an ...
      US indicts high-level Venezuela officials for drug trafficking - Business ...

      www.businessinsider.com/us-indicts-venezuela-officials-drug-trafficking-2016-8
      Aug 3, 2016 - "As long as Maduro remains in power US indictments will not deter anyone because he protects officials involved in the drug trade," a former ...

      Maduro promotes Venezuelan general indicted on drug charges in US ...
      https://www.theguardian.com › World › Venezuela

      Aug 3, 2016 - Gen Néstor Reverol allegedly facilitated drug trafficking and obstructed drugs investigations, prosecutors said. Photograph: Fernando Llano/AP.
      U.S. blacklists Venezuela's vice president as drug trafficker
      www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-venezuela-sanctions-idUSKBN15S2K4

      Feb 13, 2017 - ... Venezuela's Vice President Tareck El Aissami for drug trafficking, the first ... Nicolas Maduro's government for money laundering and the drug trade. ... signed off on the sanctions or whether he was involved in the decision.

      Venezuela President Nicolas Maduro's Relatives Indicted in U.S. for ...
      www.newsweek.com/venezuela-president-nicolas-maduros-relatives-indicted-us-cocai...
      Nov 12, 2015 - Venezuela's President Nicolas Maduro holds the hand of his wife ... of involvement in large-scale drug trafficking from the U.S. financial system.

      Venezuelan President Maduro besieged by drug smuggling charges ...
      https://www.aei.org/publication/venezuelan-maduro-drug-smuggling-charges/
      Jul 26, 2016 - ... Maduro and his close friend of drug trafficking. The appearance that members of President Maduro's own household are personally involved ...

      A drug cartel's power in Venezuela - The Washington Post
      https://www.washingtonpost.com/...drug.../9bc0ff14-ffd6-11e4-8b6c-0dcce21e223d_...
      May 24, 2015 - The regime, he told me, is desperate to deflect the drug trafficking ... for Chávez's legacy; the others are headed by Maduro and by Chávez's ...

      Delete
  24. Her mother Lisa Sainsbury told 60 Minutes she believes her daughter is innocent and will support her no matter what.

    “I’ve believed from the first second that I found out, that she’s innocent. And I still believe it to this day,” Lisa said.

    “I don’t think it’s blind faith. It goes against everything she stands for and I believe she’s 100 percent innocent and I always will.”

    Ms Sainsbury has been held at the maximum security El Buen Pastor women’s prison since her arrest.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Maybe the Australian government can help her out some way if she co-operates.

      Delete
    2. Australia is a destination for some of those drugs just like the USA.

      Delete
  25. Native American 'buffalo jump' performed by bear on sheep -

    200 sheep death plunge as bear chases over cliff....DRUDGE

    Bear chases 200 sheep over cliff edge to their deaths

    French farmers hit out at reintroduction programme of brown bears in Pyrenees after incident on Spanish border

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jul/23/bear-chases-200-sheep-over-cliff-edge-france-spain

    Fat city for the bear and the farmers who will be well compensated by the French Government.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's one hell of a bear in the picture if that is culprit.

      Delete
    2. Meanwhile in the wilderness of the USA -

      Gnawing squirrel terrorizes Brooklyn park....DRUDGE

      Delete
    3. Call this squirrel Rocky — and stay away.

      The city Health Department is putting out the warning on an “unusually aggressive squirrel” in Brooklyn’s Prospect Park that’s attacked and bitten five people.

      Though squirrels rarely have rabies, city health officials are assuming this one does.

      Anyone bitten by the squirrel, or any pets with squirrel bites, should immediately get medical treatment, the department urged.


      http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/brooklyn/city-seeks-violent-squirrel-bitten-5-brooklyn-park-article-1.3348497

      Delete
  26. It would be wise, you might consider, to check the transmission for banana skins before you bought a used Trump from the good Mr Scaramucci.

    Those of a more classic bent might turn their thoughts to the generic clown character known in Italian comedy as Scaramuccia, or Scaramouche or Scaramouch, depending on which program you're reading.

    You'll find he combines the attributes of both the servant and the masked henchman, who is often given a thrashing for boasting and cowardice. Poor Sean Spicer seemed made for the role - until the actual Scaramucci turned up.


    Whipping Boy

    ReplyDelete
  27. And He will judge between the nations, And will render decisions for many peoples; And they will hammer their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks. Nation will not lift up sword against nation, And never again will they learn war (Isaiah 2:4).
    This prophecy will not come to full fulfillment until the Messiah returns and sets up His Millennial Kingdom in Jerusalem.

    Hey, lookie what I found.

    In 1995, the Association for Cultural Interchange Inc. undertook the search of a site to develop the Saxum Project.

    https://www.saxum.org/about-us/history/#.WXWCsYWcHIU

    A kingdom you say?
    Hmmm...

    ReplyDelete
  28. In fact, Trump had been in the race for nearly a year before Scaramucci got behind his candidacy. The new White House communications director had taken a litany of policy positions contrary to the president’s agenda.

    He has financially backed some of the president’s most aggressive antagonists. And he had even taken shots at Trump himself.

    ...

    In December 2011, Scaramucci referred to the "Trump spectacle" in a tweet about Mitt Romney. Two months later, the new White House pick tweeted a National Journal article about Trump endorsing Newt Gingrich in the 2012 race: “Odd guy. So smart with no judgment.”


    ReplyDelete