Uranium One Deal: ‘More Evidence That the Democrats Are Perfectly Willing to Work With the Russians’

On Thursday’s episode of “The Glenn Beck Radio Program,” Ben Shapiro filled viewers in on the latest details to emerge from the Uranium One deal involving Russians, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and the Democratic Party.

The latest

Today, NBC News is reporting that Attorney General Jeff Sessions ordered investigators at the Justice Department to ask FBI agents to explain all of the evidence they found in the Uranium One investigation.

“At issue is a 2010 transaction in which the Obama Administration allowed the sale of U.S. uranium mining facilities to Russia’s state atomic energy company,” while Hillary was secretary of state NBC reported.

While there were no charges brought against Obama and Hillary’s camp despite allegations of corruption at the time of the sale, many Clinton Foundation donors happened to profit from the deal along with Bill and Hillary.

The evidence is staggering and the amount of details emerging can be overwhelming, but it’s something you need to know about.

Listen above to hear Ben delve into the tangled web of lies surrounding the mysterious deal.

This article provided courtesy of TheBlaze.

BEN: Okay. So this is breaking news. Attorney General Jeff Sessions apparently has ordered investigators at the Justice Department to ask FBI agents to explain all the evidence they found in the Uranium One investigation. This is a report from Tom Winter, Pete Williams, and Ken Delanian at NBC News.

Apparently, the interviews with FBI agents are part of the Justice Department's effort to fulfill a promise to an assistant's attorney general made to Congress last month, to examine whether a special council was warranted to look into what has become known as the Uranium One deal.

You remember all the details surrounding Uranium One. That issue is a 2010 transaction, in which the Obama administration allowed the sale of a US uranium mining facility, to Russian state atomic energy company. Hillary was Secretary of State at the time. The State Department was one of the nine agencies that agreed to approve the deal.

Now, senior law enforcement official was briefed on the initial FBI investigation, told NBC News, there are allegations of corruption surrounding the process, under which the US government approved the sale.

No charges were filed. But as the New York Times reported in April 2015, some of the people associated with the deal contributed millions of dollars to the Clinton Foundation.

And Bill Clinton was paid half a million dollars for one speech in Moscow by a Russian investment bank with links to the transaction. Hillary says she has nothing to do with it. Of course, that is somewhat doubtful. That is somewhat doubtful.

And there are a lot of people a few weeks back who were trying to undermine the suspicions about the Uranium One deal. And I did a bit of a summary over at my website, Daily Wire, talking about what exactly happened in the Uranium One story. So here is what was true about the Uranium One deal.

There's a guy named Frank JEW-STRA. Frank JEW-STRA was the original owner of Uranium One. And people said, okay. Well, he had invested it by the time of the sale of Uranium One and its assets to Rosatom, the Russian atomic energy agency. But here is what is true: JEW-STRA owned a company called Eurasia.

That was sold to Uranium One. JEW-STRA then said he divested his personal stake in the company, but his shareholders still own 60 percent of the company. And there's no way to confirm the truth of this claim.

In 2009 and 2010, Rosatom, which is Russia's atomic energy agency, was poised to buy a majority of the company. They were barred by law from supporting American Uranium abroad. So it wasn't that Russia was going to buy the uranium, send it back to Russia, and then use it to make bombs to murder Americans or something. That was not really the concern.

The real concern here was that Russia bought Uranium One because they actually didn't want the American assets. They bought Uranium One because Uranium One had assets in other countries that they could use to make news.

In 2013, Russia bought the rest of Uranium One with the approval of the committee on foreign investment in the United States, as well as the US nuclear regulatory commission in Utah agencies.

The CFIUS includes the State Department. Hillary Clinton said she had nothing to do with the green lighting.

So how much money actually flowed from Uranium One beneficiaries to the Clinton Foundation? Well, if you don't include JEW-STRA, about $4 million.

If you include JEW-STRA, it's 145 million. But this is all a little too simplistic.

So in 2015, here's what the New York Times reported. The Uranium One acquisition actually began in 2005, while JEW-STRA still owned the company.

Bill Clinton -- Bill Clinton flew with JEW-STRA to Kazakhstan, where the two of them dined with the authoritarian president, a guy named Nursultan Nazarbayev.

Clinton then handed the Kazakh president a propaganda -- this is the New York Times not me. When he expressed support from Mr. Nazarbayev's bid to head an international national elections monitoring group, undercutting American policy and criticism of Kazakhstan's poor human rights record, by among other people, over to Clinton. Within days of the visit, JEW-STRA's fledgling Eurasia signed a preliminary deal, giving it stakes in three uranium mines controlled by Kazakhaprom, which was the Kazakhstan official energy agency.

Eurasia then in 2007 merged with Uranium One, a South African company with assets in Africa and Australia in a $3.5 billion transaction. The new company kept the Uranium One name. It was controlled by Eurasia investors, including Ian Telfer, who is a Canadian who became chairman. JEW-STRA says at that point he sold his stake.

Soon Uranium One began to snap up companies with assets in the United States.

In April 2007, it announced that it was going to purchase the uranium mill in Utah. The questions about Rosatom's control of Uranium isn't really about the Russians crafting nukes, as I say. It's about shortages of uranium in the United States and us being dependent on foreign sources for that material. And, again, about Rosatom purchasing nuclear material in Kazakhstan. And the Clintons were still involved at this time. They were involved past the sale.

This is the point. It didn't end with JEW-STRA selling Rosatom. I mean, selling Uranium One.

The new head, Ian Telfer, he gave between 1.3 million and 5.6 million in contributions to the Clinton foundation.

From a constellation of people with ties to Uranium One or Eurasia. Without the assets, the Kazakh mines, the Russians would have had no interest in the deal. Amid the influx of Uranium One-connected money, Clinton was invited to speak in Moscow in June 2010. The same month Rosatom struck its deal for a majority stake in Uranium One. So the same month that Rosatom decided to buy Uranium One,

Clinton spent time in Moscow and got 500 grand for it. It's not at all unclear that the Clintons were unrelated to Uranium One. So, again, just more evidence that Democrats are perfectly willing to work with the Russians when they saw a way to benefit from it.

Science did it again. It only took 270 million years, but this week, scientists finally solved the mystery that has kept the world up at night. We finally know where octopuses come from: outer space. That explains why they look like the aliens in just about every alien movie ever made.

RELATED: Changes in technology can be cause for concern, but THIS is amazing

It turns out octopuses were aliens that evolved on another planet. Scientists haven't determined which one yet, but they've definitely narrowed it down to one of the planets in one of the galaxies. Hundreds of millions of years ago (give or take a hundred), these evolved octopus aliens arrived on Earth in the form of cryopreserved eggs. Now, this part is just speculation, but it's possible their alien planet was on the verge of destruction, so Mom and Dad Octopus self-sacrificially placed Junior in one of these cryopreserved eggs and blasted him off the planet to save their kind.

This alien-octopus research, co-authored by a group of 33 scientists, was published in the Progress in Biophysics and Molecular Biology journal. I'm sure you keep that on your nightstand like I do.

Anyway, these scientists say octopuses evolved very rapidly over 270 million years. Which sounds slow, but in evolutionary terms, 270 million years is like light speed. And the only explanation for their breakneck evolution is that they're aliens. The report says, “The genome of the Octopus shows a staggering level of complexity with 33,000 protein-coding genes — more than is present in Homo sapiens."

Lucky for us, they landed in the water. Otherwise, we might be octopus pets.

They mention that the octopus' large brain, sophisticated nervous system, camera-like eyes, flexible bodies and ability to change color and shape all point to its alien nature. Octopuses developed those capabilities rather suddenly in evolution, whereas we're still trying to figure out the TV remote.

These biological enhancements are so far ahead of regular evolution that the octopuses must have either time-traveled from the future, or “more realistically" according to scientists, crash-landed on earth in those cryopreserved egg thingies. The report says the eggs arrived here in “icy bolides." I had to look up what a “bolide" is, and turns out it's a fancy word for a meteor.

So, to recap: a long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away, an alien race of octopuses packed their sperm-bank samples in some meteors and shot them toward Earth. Lucky for us, they landed in the water. Otherwise, we might be octopus pets.

President Trump's approval rating is rising, and Democrats — hilariously — can't seem to figure out what's going on. A few months ago Democrats enjoyed a sixteen point lead over Republicans, but now — according to CNN's recent national survey — that lead is down to just THREE points. National data from Reuters shows it as being even worse.

The Democratic advantage moving towards the halfway mark into 2018 shows that Republicans are only ONE point behind. The president's public approval rating is rising, and Democrats are nervously looking at each other like… “umm guys, what are we doing wrong here?"

I'm going to give Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi a little hint. We know that the Left has enjoyed a “special relationship" with the media, but they might want to have a sit down with their propaganda machine. The mainstream media is completely out of control, and Americans are sick of it. We're DONE with the media.

RELATED: The mainstream media wants you to believe Trump is waging war on immigrants — here's the truth

Look what has been going on just this week. The president called MS-13 gang members animals, but that's not the story the media jumped on. They thought it was more clickable to say that Trump was calling all immigrants animals instead. In the Middle East, the media rushed to vilify Israel instead of Hamas. They chose to defend a terror organization rather than one of our oldest allies.

Think about that. The media is so anti-Trump that they've chosen a violent street gang AND A GLOBAL TERROR ORGANIZATION as their torch-bearing heroes. Come on, Democrats. Are you seriously baffled why the American people are turning their backs on you?

Still not enough evidence? Here's the New York Times just yesterday. Charles Blow wrote a piece called "A Blue Wave of Moral Restoration" where he tried to make the case that the president and Republicans were the enemy, but — fear not — Democrat morality was here to save the day.

Here are some of these cases Blow tries to make for why Trump is unfit to be President:

No person who treats women the way Trump does and brags on tape about sexually assaulting them should be president.

Ok, fine. You can make that argument if you want to, but why weren't you making this same argument for Bill Clinton? Never mind, I actually know the reason. Because you were too busy trying to bury the Juanita Broaddrick story.

Let's move on:

No person who has demonstrated himself to be a pathological liar should be president.

Do the words, “You can keep your doctor" mean anything to the New York Times or Charles Blow? I might have saved the best for last:

No person enveloped by a cloud of corruption should be president.

I can only think of three words for a response to this: Hillary Frigging Clinton.

Try displaying a little consistency.

If the media really wants Donald Trump gone and the Democrats to take over, they might want to try displaying a little consistency. But hey, maybe that's just too much to ask.

How about starting with not glorifying terrorist organizations and murderous street gangs. Could we at least begin there?

If not… good luck in the midterms.

In the weeks following President Trump's decision to recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital, the mainstream media was quick to criticize the president's pro-Israel stance and make dire predictions of violent backlash in the Middle East. Fast forward to this week's opening of the US Embassy in Jerusalem and the simultaneous Palestinian “protests" in Gaza.

RELATED: Just another day in Iran: Parliment chants death to America after Trump pulls out of nuclear deal

Predictably, the mainstream media chastised Israel for what they called “state-sanctioned terrorism" when the IDF stepped in to protect their country from so-called peaceful Palestinian protesters. Hamas leaders later admitted that at least 50 of the 62 Palestinians killed in the clashes were Hamas terrorists.

“In our post-modern media age, there is no truth and nobody even seems to be looking for it …. This is shamefully clear in the media especially this week with their coverage of the conflict between the border of Israel and the Gaza strip," said Glenn on today's show. He added, “The main media narrative this week is about how the IDF is just killing innocent protesters, while Hamas officials have confirmed on TV that 50 of the 62 people killed were working for Hamas."

The mainstream media views the Palestinians as the oppressed people who just want to share the land and peacefully coexist with the people of Israel. “They can't seem to comprehend that in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, only one side is actively trying to destroy the other," surmised Glenn.

Watch the video above to hear Glenn debunk the “peaceful Palestinian protest" fallacy.

Here are a few headlines regarding the protests in Israel: 'Global protests grow after Israeli killing of Palestinian demonstrators,' the Guardian. 'Israel kills dozens at Gaza Border,' the New York Times. 'Palestinians mourn dead in Gaza as protests continue,' CNN. 'Over 50 Palestinians in massive protest are killed by Israeli military, bloodiest day in Gaza since 2014 war,' ABC News. 'Gaza begins to bury its dead after deadliest day in years,' BBC.

RELATED: Here's why Israel used lethal force during mass protests in Gaza yesterday

In each, the spoken or unspoken subject of the sentence and villain of the story is Israel. Innocent Palestinians murdered by the cruel Israelis. This is the narrative that the mainstream media has promulgated. Few have mentioned that the majority of the “protestors" that died were members of Hamas, the militant (and highly anti-Semetic) Sunni-Islamist organization that has been labeled a Foreign Terrorist Organization by the U.S. State Department.

A senior Hamas official told reporters that 50 of the 59 people killed in Monday's protests were members of Hamas, and the remainder were “from the people." So…they were all Hamas.

As usual, mention of such membership has been left out of the mainstream media's anti-Israel, pro-Islam narrative.

As usual, mention of such membership has been left out of the mainstream media's anti-Israel, pro-Islam narrative. Maybe they think of Palestinians as underdogs and they love a good scrap. Well, they aren't underdogs. But their outburst have been glorified for so long that it's near impossible to disagree with that narrative.