Talk:Uranium One controversy

Proposal link to "Uranium One controversy"

All contributors are welcome to join this discussion on this other article talk page. This discussion is about keeping this article "Allegations of scandal" large section, but move it to its own article. And name this new article "Uranium One controversy". Then link both articles "Uranium One" and "Uranium One controversy". So that both articles can still feel the Wikipedia love. Francewhoa (talk) 16:33, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Intro first paragraph

The first paragraph is highly biased and inaccurate. "The Uranium One controversy involves conspiracy theories promoted by right-wing media, politicians, and commentators." No, it is a concern that has triggered partial investigations due to the material profit the Clinton family received as a result of this issue. Former President Clinton received ~$500 million for a 1/2 hour speech, and the "Clinton Foundation" received some $145 million from Russian sources tied to this deal. It is not a simple "conspiracy theory", nor is it only a concern of right wing media and politicians.

About this Wikipedia article introduction and its first paragraph. How about this suggested draft below? For NPOV, I tried to include all main point of views (POV). With their respective sources. This paragraph summarized the main reported views. While leaving the details out. Anyhow details are available within the articles. To reduce risk of confusion between allegations and proven facts, noticed that I added a link to the Wikipedia article about "allegation". This is in the event that the reader is not yet familiar with what an allegation is. As you know this is a Wikipedia article, not a propaganda article for any political party or for any country agenda, so of course I tried to filter out politics and or bias. In other words, I suggest to stay focused on the sources. While remaining within the NPOV.

Suggested draft

The Uranium One controversy is about alleged compromised national-security interests and racketeering. It allegedly involved Bill Clinton, The Clinton Foundation, Hillary Clinton, the Obama administration, high level officials in Russia, the State Department, and Uranium One a Russian state-owned uranium mining company. All the parties denied those allegations and since the allegations began in 2015 no evidence of a scandal has surfaced.

Sources

Francewhoa (talk) 06:23, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

---

The controversy is not about "alleged compromised national-security interests and racketeering". It's a faux controversy that found zero evidence of wrong-doing on any actor's end. The controversy and conspiracy theories it gave rise to mainly thrived in conservative media and among Republican politicians. That's what the lede should say, and that's what the old Uranium One article used to say before you created this new article with an entirely new twist on the event. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 11:41, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

I think the problem with the current state of the article as a whole is that it covers two different Uranium One controversies. The main controversy of this article is related to the Clinton Foundation–State Department controversy and the 2010 sale of Uranium One to Rosatom. The other controversy involves the investigation of Rosatom's Tenam, which led to the criminal conviction of the Russian national Vadim Mikerin and involved the FBI informant William Douglas Campbell. These two controversies seem to only be tangentially related; the bribery scheme Mikerin was involved in was part of his oversight of the Megatons to Megawatts Program (according to Reuters), not the sale of Uranium One. ^Falling_Gravity 00:45, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Your assertions are false and backed by bogus sources. All one needs to do is read about Giustra and CFIUS to see this is a transparent conspiracy theory. Time to move on. soibangla (talk) 18:18, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Request for exact citation

@Snooganssnoogans:, you recently copied a sentence to this article from the article on John F. Solomon. Unfortunately, the content is unreadable/ungrammatical as you copied it [1]. Could you provide an exact citation from the source about what was "insinuated"? Was it a link between a payment and an action that was insinuated? If so maybe both sentences need to be rewritten. Here is the original from the Solomon article:

In October 2017, Solomon published an article on The Hill about the Uranium One controversy where he insinuated payments from Russians to the Clinton Foundation at the time when the Obama administration approved the sale of Uranium One to Rosatom.

~ 🐝 ~ SashiRolls ^{t · c} 15:15, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the partial fix, @Snooganssnoogans:, however the sentence remains grammatically incorrect (cf. the complicated syntax of "insinuate" / "suggest" which often takes an (X is Y) complement with two arguments...) For the moment, your addition to both pages is quite confusing, if not quite meaningless. It would be better to provide the original quote, using the quote attribute of the citation template since you have consulted the book. Bestest seasonal wishes to you! ~ 🐝 ~ SashiRolls ^{t · c} 16:15, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

2017 DOJ letter found in 2019

I suggest to add a paragraph about the recent Wednesday February 27th, 2019 significant and related statement from a United States Department of Justice layer. He said he found a DOJ's letter dated 2017, but somehow he found this letter last week in 2019. How about the draft paragraph below? With source.

In February 2019 a United States Department of Justice (DOJ) lawyer stated to have found a formal letter written and signed by the United States Attorney General. Which ordered the Utah U.S. Attorney to investigate how the DOJ handled their past investigations into both the Clinton Foundation and Hillary Clinton, in relation with Uranium One. The letter found is dated November 22, 2017.

Sources

Francewhoa (talk) 07:13, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

---

Given the preceding paragraph in the article, I don't see how this is particularly noteworthy. The letter is simply confirmation of what was already long-known. soibangla (talk) 18:41, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Article issues

An IP editor made changes to the lead with a detailed edit summary "Changed "right-wing" to "conservative" as any political affiliation with the suffix "-wing" is needlessly politically charged, a bordeline (sic) slur or hate speech, while the latter preserves the fact but is less inciting. The point of this article is to report the facts, not spark problematic controversy because either side cannot act in a mature, adult manner." and this was reverted rather quickly by another editor.

Not only do I agree with this summary (not necessarily the exact wording) but it needed to go farther. I think the blanket turning of an article, that is only C-class so certainly in need of improvements, into a political statement is wrong and certainly violates policies and guidelines like neutral point of view, that is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia and a core content policy, and is biased writing.

I wouldn't call this "conservative" media https://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-foundation-as-russians-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.131.11.129 (talk) 03:46, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

The current lead sets the tone that the article content lays the foundation of a political witch hunt but that is not reflected in the article. That right-wing media, politicians, and commentators were or became involved does not mean that the issues, reported by the likes of the New York Times and CNN news (sources in the article) were some non-conservative reported witch hunt.

A Google search return 1)- Russian Uranium One Deal And Hillary Clinton In The News Again (Forbes), 2)- Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation Amid Russian Uranium Deal (NY Times), 3)- Prosecutors ask FBI agents for info on Uranium One deal NBC News, 4)- Unpacking Uranium One: Hype and Law - Lawfare (Lawfare) Explains the role of the Committee on Foreign Investments in the United States (CFIUS) considering a 20% sale of uranium and national security implications.

Considering there were ties between Bill Clinton, Russia, Hillary and at the least a PR firm that both appears to have been a client of around the same time, and an FBI informant (whistle-blower maybe?) there would certainly be cause for a House Intelligence and Oversight committee investigation regardless of which political party was in control. There were reported connections, not just from "right-wing" or conservative media (but there were many), of connections between Clinton Global Initiative (CGI), Uranium One, Tenex, and APCO. The PR firm denied any wrong-doing; 5)- Kraus: Allegations APCO was involved in Uranium One ... (PR Week). Are there what if's? Was there questionable mixing of the Clinton Foundation, Hillary Clinton, and the State Department business dealings? The Wall Street Journal wrote an interesting piece: 6)- Uranium One Is a Curious Case - WSJ (Wall Street Journal). Would these "concerns" matter who was in charge of Congress? As a citizen of the United States I don't care who uncovers crime, corruption, matters of national security, or follows leads that show there could be a connection, be it Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump. This is also important as a Wikipedia editor. The above links are not from "right-wing media, politicians, and commentators" but main stream media. Assertions or evidence that the issues are being further advanced by one party or affiliated person or entity is certainly of article interest but not the main topic nor should the article begin with assertions that Only "right-Wing" pundits or media are advancing "conspiracy theories" that don't exist. Along with a host of Conservative media coverage there are also many more main-stream media coverage reports than what I have listed.

The lead needs to be rewritten for neutrality. A previous "version" was less politically tainted. Otr500 (talk) 13:12, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Was this entire entry written by Media Matters or even Hillary Clinton herself? That's how it reads. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.93.6.11 (talk) 14:17, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

• To which "entire entry" would this be directed at? I don't know about the lead but it sets the tone that all the sources on the article (many main-stream) as well as those that are not, and painting a pictures of only a witch hunt and that there was no reasoning for any investigations. I am sure Hillary would support that, Otr500 (talk) 15:26, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

The Arbitration Board that normally prevents this kind of biased partisan editing (that's what was done objectively, what you describe) has ambiguous jurisdiction and it is unclear if they can decline to charge on a report made for 'hate speech' or 'conspiracy theories' that in truth a disgruntled partisan editor merely doesn't like. In effect, it's protection may be no more than a smokescreen for all we know, and the prevalence of (mostly) left-learning editors that want to edit controversial political articles in a partisan manner (ie calling a , provides circumstantial evidence of that.

Anyone want proof? Look in the Talk of most any political American article about a conservative or Republican topic, and see just how many well-written complaints about borderline libellous editing are responded to with a handwave and perhaps a citation to a confirmation-bias-affirming journalistic (or -esque) publication they can find. If not acted on, (like this person's comment has not been as of today) they are outright ignored.

And for the 3-Revert Rule? You "may" be banned, not required to be if you violate that rule. So if *whoever* that person who reviews your reverts is, if they agree with that editor's partisan reverts, an example this person gives, can decline to charge if they subjectively agree with the person. And without full transparency of that due process, which we DO NOT have currently, we cannot confirm that those reviewers ARE objective! Again, circumstantial evidence of how prevalently this partisan behavior is allowed to remain on all such articles speaks to the accusation those reviewers and the Arbitration Board are not objective.

You make good points, and speak authoritatively with a lot of tangible publication references and tangible evidence. But let's be honest: Any cursory look at the Talks of any American conservative figure or political scandal implicating left-leaning politicians, shows that doesn't matter here, no matter what Guidelines or Policies may say. Those comments are best evidence, and are undeniable. This commenter's words are doomed to never be allowed to stand on an article like this, for any length of time, and we all know it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Edit_warring#The_three-revert_rul

e 74.193.217.154 (talk) 02:00, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Other sources

• After Mining Deal, Financier Donated to Clinton

Yes, as explained in this article, Giustra donated in 2005, before he sold UrAsia to U1, and again in 2007, after he sold UrAsia and exited the uranium business. He never had any involvement with U1 after that point. His donations constitute the bulk of the alleged "bribes." Just a cursory inspection of the timeline of his donations, plus the role of CFIUS, shows there was never any scandal here. soibangla (talk) 20:40, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

My concern is not about Giustra. My concern is that main-stream media has made connections between Hillary, the Clinton Foundation, Bill Clinton, and various persons and entities, not just right-wing media, politicians, and commentators. Any person with US interests at heart would and should be concerned about 20% (but more than that including other areas and sites) has been acquired or under control of foreign powers. That the US could "take control", if national interests becomes a concern, is sort of muddied considering a trucking firm shipped some out to Canada and "most of it" was recovered. I am not a scientist but according to the internet a concentration of 20% Uranium of 35 pounds can make a chain-reaction. I would think this a concern to the entire world deserving of close scrutiny.

My point is, that without a doubt, there were/are, what to a blind man (or woman), reasoning for suspicion. These "incidences" were many times opened by non-conservative, non-wight-wing media. This would not matter what the political affiliation of a prudent person would be. Again, the lead is extremely bias to open in affect that: The following article is a series of hoaxes and conspiracy theories promoted by right-wing media, politicians, and commentators. That it has remained only lightly challenged (more than once) is pretty amazing. The wording turns the article into a political puff-piece.

As a person it might matter if you or I are pro-Hillary or anti-Hillary, but as editors spinning articles in a certain direction is not and should not be our intent. That no wrong-doing has been uncovered is clear in the article and sources. That conservatives or "Right-wing" pundits or media outlets continue to dig is covered in the article and once again, in the lead and article, it is clear that no apparent wrong-doing has been uncovered.

I can keep adding main-stream related (to the article) sources (there are many) that mention the incidences. If there is a remote chance that an explosive devise could be built from Uranium mined in the US by rogue interests, and used, possibly in a mall somewhere in the US, I want the right-wing, Center-wing (Centrists), Left-wing, and all others to re-examine things and leave no rock untouched.

To be clear: The lead needs to be changed. This article, as far as I can tell, is neutrally worded and lays out a series of incidences, some very controversial and worthy of examination, with a bottom line that no wrong-doing has been proven. This would be a good piece except, it is mired by the opening sentence that makes it seem that every bit of it is because some opposition party has/is needlessly digging into things.

I am confident that my assessment is neutral and that my concerns are valid enough that I can effect change through resolution. I would prefer not to go that route unless there is shown intent to keep clear biased wording that is against policies and guidelines. Here is hoping for collaboration, Otr500 (talk) 06:22, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

• Added note for even more clarity: I have not dug into the article more than reading it over and noticing the blatant policy-violating opening and second lead sentences. My concern is not so much with the last two sentences of the second paragraph. In fact, my issue is specifically with the opening paragraph. I will add that content in the lead should be a summary of what is found and referenced in the article and the opening and second sentences do not follow that. Our policies and guidelines are clear toward neutrality, bias, and balance mandating a more neutrally worded opening paragraph and not one that lays out that the title should actually be Uranium One Right-wing conspiracy theories. Otr500 (talk) 06:43, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Review of FBI investigation ordered by Attorney General Sessions

The "Review of FBI investigation ordered by Attorney General Sessions" subsection is dated March 2018 and the last sentence of the first paragraph includes "...to look into whether further investigation is warranted. The sources are dated July 26, 2018, but it appears to be left in limbo. Is there still an active investigation by Huber? If not was there a final decision concerning if further investigation is/was discussed or decided on, or has the matter been laid to rest as far as he is concerned? Otr500 (talk) 07:06, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Well how did that turn out...? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.53.232.146 (talk) 22:15, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

He found nothing of consequence; the source was already in the lead but wasn't mentioned further down the article. --Aquillion (talk) 22:34, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

More improvements needed

I did two quick, small tweak improvements but here are more glitches that I did not have time to fix:

• The "Timeline" section is missing sections for key events, most obviously the Russian company's acquisition of Uranium One that is the whole point here.
• Each section on the timeline also includes descriptions of events that happened at other times. Eg the 2005 section includes, contrary to its "2005" header, "to be followed in 2007 with a pledge of at least $100 million." The "timeline" format / organization should either be followed more closely or, probably better, abandoned in favor of a different, more thematic & narrative format / organization, e.g., "Alleged bribes to Clinton Foundation," optionally with a range of years that overlaps with other years on the "timeline," as header.
• Uranium One is described in different places in the same para as "a Canadian mining company" (my edit, following its Wiki entry), and as "a South African-Canadian company". I did not confirm this but think Canadian is more accurate based on typical indicia of corporate nationality (where legally incorporated, HQ location). First, the paragraph's two descriptions of the company should not be contradictory. And if mention of the South African aspect is kept, that mention needs to explain more specifically in what way the company is "Canadian-South African".

100.15.187.226 (talk) 13:12, 10 June 2021 (UTC)