# Pay to Play – Uranium One and the Clinton Foundation

LibertyPen

Published on Nov 9, 2017

In 2009, the Obama administration approved the transferred control of twenty percent of America’s uranium to Russian interests. This deal, which on the face seems contrary to national interest, is examined by focusing on the beneficiaries and following the money. http://www.LibertyPen.com (Excerpts are largely from Fox News, since other networks find it their interest to ignore the story)

# List of countries by uranium production

This is a list of countries by uranium production in 2015.

Rank Country/Region Uranium production (2015)
(tonnes U)[1]
Uranium Production (2011)
(thousands pounds U3O8)[2]
Percentage of
World Production (2015)
World 60,496 139,513 100
1  Kazakhstan 23,800 46,284 39.3
3  Australia 5,654 15,339 9.3
4  Niger 4,116 10,914 6.8
5  Russia 3,055 1,516 5.0
6  Namibia 2,993 11,689 4.9
7  Uzbekistan 2,385[3] 6,239 3.9
8  China 1,616[3] 2,150 2.7
9  United States 1,256 4,316 2.1
10  Ukraine 1,200[3] 2,210 2.0
11  South Africa 393 2,210 0.6
12  India 385[3] 1,040 0.6
13  Czech Republic 155 660 0.3
14  Romania 77[3] 200 0.1
15  Pakistan 45[3] 117 0.1
16  Brazil 40[3] 385 0.1
17  France 2 18 0.0

# 8 Countries With the Largest Uranium Reserves

## Where can North Korea get uranium? More places than you think have it — and some might actually be willing to sell this vital nuclear fuel.

Oct 18, 2017 at 6:00AM

IMAGE SOURCE: GETTY IMAGES.

If you’ve been following the news, you may think uranium is only used in nuclear bombs and nuclear power plants. But uranium has lots of other uses. Unfortunately, the Fukushima nuclear reactor meltdown in Japan and North Korea’s (and Iran’s) continued push for nuclear weapons show the volatile and dangerous nature of this vital element. What’s even more frightening that uranium’s destructive potential is the fact that several of the countries with the largest uranium reserves could conceivably sell some to North Korea and Iran.

Check out this list of the countries with the world’s top uranium reserves.

THE RANGER URANIUM MINE IN AUSTRALIA’S NORTHERN TERRITORY. IMAGE SOURCE: GETTY IMAGES.

## 1. Australia

Australia possesses around 30% of the world’s known recoverable uranium reserves. This island nation is the 20th-largest economy in the world and has stable legal and political systems; you might say it’s one of the “nice guys.”

The stability of Australia makes it a great place for miners to operate. For example, globally diversified giants Rio Tinto plc(NYSE:RIO) and BHP Billiton Limited(NYSE:BHP) both have uranium mines in the country. BHP’s Olympic Dam, its only uranium asset, is the largest known uranium orebody in the world. Rio, meanwhile, has an investment in the Ranger Mine.

The nuclear fuel is such a small contributor to BHP’s business that the company doesn’t even report that segment’s results independently. And at Rio, uranium made up just 1.3% of 2016 revenue and 0.4% of EBITDA. That said, Rio’s and BHP’s uranium mines are the most important in Australia, so the companies play a significant role in the global uranium market. The same is true of Australia, which is better known for commodities like iron ore and coal.

IMAGE SOURCE: GETTY IMAGES.

## 2. Kazakhstan

Kazakhstan is the 42nd-largest economy in the world and the largest former Soviet Republic by area (excluding Russia). Kazakhstan is resource-rich, which helps to explain why its economy is so much larger than those of other Central Asian nations, and 22% of its exports go to neighboring China and Russia. The country also struggles with corruption and a weak banking system.

Kazakhstan contains about 13% of the world’s recoverable uranium, with 50 known deposits and around 20 operating uranium mines, so it’s a key player in the uranium market. Kazatomprom, a state-owned entity, controls the uranium industry in the country through its own subsidiaries or via joint ventures with foreign companies. One such partner is Cameco Corp(NYSE:CCJ), the world’s largest pure-play, publicly traded uranium miner. Cameco’s Inkai mine investment is just one of many uranium assets in the miner’s portfolio, which spans mining, processing, and brokering.

IMAGE SOURCE: GETTY IMAGES.

## 3. Russia

The third-largest player in the global uranium market is Russia, with about 9% of the world’s uranium (it’s actually tied with No. 4, Canada). Russia’s economy is the seventh-largest in the world, and the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency describes the country as a “centralized authoritarian state … in which the regime seeks to legitimize its rule through managed elections, populist appeals, a foreign policy focused on enhancing the country’s geopolitical influence, and commodity-based economic growth.” It’s easy to see why Russia’s enormous uranium reserves make many world leaders nervous.

Russia is largely seen as supporting countries like North Korea and Iran, either overtly or through political means, e.g., using its veto power on the United Nations Security Council. It has often teamed up with China, which will make a brief appearance later on this list, to soften the world’s response to North Korean and Iranian nuclear provocations. State-controlled AtomRedMetZoloto handles all of Russia’s uranium mining and exploration activity.

IMAGE SOURCE: GETTY IMAGES.

Canada also accounts for around 9% of the world’s recoverable uranium. The United States’ northern neighbor, like Australia, is generally considered a positive force in the world. Its economy is the 18th-largest in the world. Throughout much of its history Canada has benefited from its proximity to the U.S., which is the end market for more than three-quarters of Canada’s exports.

Cameco, which hails from Canada, is the most notable uranium miner in the country. It has a number of investments, but Cigar Lake and McArthur River are two of the largest uranium mines in Canada and the world.

There is vast potential for further uranium development in Canada. For example, Cameco and Denison Mines Corp are partners in the Wheeler River project. This mine, which isn’t expected to start production until 2025, has the potential to be one of the five largest uranium-producing mines in the world.

CAPE TOWN, SOUTH AFRICA. IMAGE SOURCE: GETTY IMAGES.

## 5. South Africa

From here the list of uranium-rich countries gets a little subjective, because the numbers are fairly close.According to some sources, South Africa has around 6% of the world’s developable uranium reserves. Other sources peg its reserves at just lower than the next two countries on the list, Niger and Namibia. Either way, it’s in the neighborhood of No. 5 by uranium reserves, and it’s a big step down from the top four countries on the list.

South Africa’s economy ranks at No. 31 globally. It has long struggled with unemployment, poverty, and inequality. The government, meanwhile, has not been a particularly stable influence. When it comes to mining, the country is better known for platinum, gold, and chromium than for uranium. For example, gold miner AngloGold Ashanti Limited(NYSE:AU) produces uranium in South Africa, but only as a byproduct of its other mining efforts.

South Africa has two nuclear power plants, and there are plans to build a couple more, so there is a potentially growing market for nuclear fuel in the country. Although South Africa will probably never be a major force in the global uranium market, it could be an interesting region to watch — especially if those new nuclear facilities get built.

IMAGE SOURCE: GETTY IMAGES.

## 6. Niger

Niger has about 5% of the world’s known developable uranium reserves. The country has two major mines and hits above its weight class, supplying roughly 7.5% of the world’s uranium. France’s Areva SA is a major player in the country, and its Arlit mine is one of the 10 highest-producing uranium mines in the world. Areva has another project in the country that’s currently on hold due to low uranium prices.

Niger’s is not a large economy, ranking at just 146 globally. Interestingly, uranium is Niger’s largest export. According to Areva, uranium represents around 5% of the country’s gross domestic product and supplies around 5% of its tax revenues. Niger, however, is a very poor nation and must rely on outside investment for the development of its resources. That’s where Areva comes in, though it’s worth noting here that China is also involved in developing Niger’s uranium assets to a smaller extent.

IMAGE SOURCE: GETTY IMAGES.

## 7. Namibia

Next up is Namibia, which also has roughly 5% of the world’s developable uranium resources. Namibia is only slightly larger than Niger, with its economy weighing in at No. 136 worldwide. Its economy, while poor, is more diversified than Niger’s: The country exports more diamonds, copper, gold, zinc, than it does uranium. Natural resources are highly important to the nation’s economic well-being. Overall, mining accounts for about 11.5% of the country’s gross domestic product and provides over half of the country’s foreign exchange earnings.

China is a big player in the country, and China’s investment there could materially change the face of the uranium market inside and outside Namibia. The CIA expects the Chinese-owned Husab mine to make Namibia the No. 2 uranium producer worldwide. India is also working toward a uranium relationship with the country. Australian-British miner Rio Tinto has a major stake in one of the country’s other two major mines as well. Namibia is a country to watch closely as competing forces look to take advantage of its uranium wealth.

IMAGE SOURCE: GETTY IMAGES.

## 8. China

China has around 5% of the world’s developable uranium supplies and ranks as the globe’s largest economy based on gross domestic product. Some sources place its uranium reserves a little higher than countries like Namibia and Niger, while others rank them a little lower.

The centrally controlled country is a major nuclear power, with 20 nuclear power plants currently under construction (not to mention the ability to produce its own nuclear weapons). As you can see from its investment in Namibia, it is reaching out beyond its borders to ensure it has access to the uranium it needs for its internal use. And because of its size, it has the resources to continue investing to boost its position in the uranium industry.

Perhaps more concerning, China and its neighbor with nuclear ambitions, North Korea, have long been trading partners. China has attempted to protect the autocratic state politically, often allying with Russia in the effort. So while China is nowhere near the top of this list when it comes to uranium reserves, it is already playing an important role globally in mining for uranium and deciding how it gets used. China should probably be higher up on your list of concerns than any of the African nations that have equal or larger uranium reserves, and perhaps even higher than uranium giant Australia.

## Tensions are running high

Uranium is a potentially life-altering power source when used conscientiously and carefully. It can provide reliable baseload power without the use of dirty carbon fuels. However, it can also be used to create weapons of mass destruction, which is why most countries around the world would prefer to keep it out of the hands of players like Iran and North Korea.

As you can see from this list, many of the largest uranium reserves are in countries that are democratic, relatively stable, and all-around good geopolitical forces. But some are too corrupt, unstable, or financially weak to fall into that category. If you are interested in the way uranium is getting used around the world, you should be keeping a close eye on at least a few of the countries that made this list.

https://www.fool.com/investing/2017/10/18/8-countries-with-the-largest-uranium-reserves.aspx

# Supply of Uranium

(Updated December 2016)

• Uranium is a relatively common metal, found in rocks and seawater. Economic concentrations of it are not uncommon.
• Its availability to supply world energy needs is great both geologically and because of the technology for its use.
• Quantities of mineral resources are greater than commonly perceived.
• The world’s known uranium resources increased by at least one-quarter in the last decade due to increased mineral exploration.

Uranium is a relatively common element in the crust of the Earth (very much more than in the mantle). It is a metal approximately as common as tin or zinc, and it is a constituent of most rocks and even of the sea. Some typical concentrations are: (ppm = parts per million).

Very high-grade ore (Canada) – 20% U 200,000 ppm U 20,000 ppm U 1,000 ppm U 100 ppm U 3-5 ppm U 2-3 ppm U 2.8 ppm U 0.003 ppm U

* Where uranium is at low levels in rock or sands (certainly less than 1000 ppm) it needs to be in a form which is easily separated for those concentrations to be called ‘ore’ – that is, implying that the uranium can be recovered economically. This means that it needs to be in a mineral form that can easily be dissolved by sulfuric acid or sodium carbonate leaching.

An orebody is, by definition, an occurrence of mineralisation from which the metal is economically recoverable. It is therefore relative to both costs of extraction and market prices. At present neither the oceans nor any granites are orebodies, but conceivably either could become so if prices were to rise sufficiently.

Measured resources of uranium, the amount known to be economically recoverable from orebodies, are thus also relative to costs and prices. They are also dependent on the intensity of past exploration effort, and are basically a statement about what is known rather than what is there in the Earth’s crust – epistemology rather than geology. See section below for mineral resource and reserve categories.

Changes in costs or prices, or further exploration, may alter measured resource figures markedly. At ten times the current price*, seawater might become a potential source of vast amounts of uranium. Thus, any predictions of the future availability of any mineral, including uranium, which are based on current cost and price data and current geological knowledge are likely to be extremely conservative.

* US DOE-funded work using polymer absorbent strips suggest $610/kgU in 2014. Japanese (JAERI) research in 2002 using a polymeric absorbent in a nonwoven fabric containing an amidoxime group that was capable of forming a complex with uranyl tricarbonate ions, suggested about$300/kgU.

From time to time concerns are raised that the known resources might be insufficient when judged as a multiple of present rate of use. But this is the Limits to Growth fallacy, a major intellectual blunder recycled from the 1970s, which takes no account of the very limited nature of the knowledge we have at any time of what is actually in the Earth’s crust. Our knowledge of geology is such that we can be confident that identified resources of metal minerals are a small fraction of what is there. Factors affecting the supply of resources are discussed further and illustrated in the Appendix.

## Uranium availability

With those major qualifications the following Table gives some idea of our present knowledge of uranium resources. It can be seen that Australia has a substantial part (about 29%) of the world’s uranium, Kazakhstan 13%, Russia and Canada 9% each.

Known Recoverable Resources of Uranium 2015

Australia Kazakhstan tonnes U percentage of world 1,664,100 29% 745,300 13% 509,000 9% 507,800 9% 322,400 6% 291,500 5% 276,800 5% 272,500 5% 267,000 5% 141,500 2% 130,100 2% 115,800 2% 73,500 1% 62,900 1% 58,100 1% 47,700 1% 232,400 4% 5,718,400

Reasonably Assured Resources plus Inferred Resources (recoverable), to US$130/kg U, 1/1/15, from OECD NEA & IAEA, Uranium 2016: Resources, Production and Demand (‘Red Book’). The total to US$ 260/kg U is 7.641 million tonnes U.

Current usage is about 63,000 tU/yr. Thus the world’s present measured resources of uranium (5.7 Mt) in the cost category less than three times present spot prices and used only in conventional reactors, are enough to last for about 90 years. This represents a higher level of assured resources than is normal for most minerals. Further exploration and higher prices will certainly, on the basis of present geological knowledge, yield further resources as present ones are used up.

An initial uranium exploration cycle was military-driven, over 1945 to 1958. The second cycle was about 1974 to 1983, driven by civil nuclear power and in the context of a perception that uranium might be scarce. There was relatively little uranium exploration between 1985 and 2003, so the significant increase in exploration effort since then could conceivably double the known economic resources despite adjustments due to increasing costs. In the two years 2005-06 the world’s known uranium resources tabulated above and graphed below increased by 15% (17% in the cost category to $80/kgU). World uranium exploration expenditure is increasing, as the the accompanying graph makes clear. In the third uranium exploration cycle from 2004 to the end of 2013 about US$ 16 billion was spent on uranium exploration and deposit delineation on over 600 projects. In this period over 400 new junior companies were formed or changed their orientation to raise over US$2 billion for uranium exploration. Much of this was spent on previously-known deposits. All this was in response to increased uranium price in the market and the prospect of firm future prices. The price of a mineral commodity also directly determines the amount of known resources which are economically extractable. On the basis of analogies with other metal minerals, a doubling of price from present levels could be expected to create about a tenfold increase in measured economic resources, over time, due both to increased exploration and the reclassification of resources regarding what is economically recoverable. This is in fact suggested in the IAEA-NEA figures if those covering estimates of all conventional resources (U as main product or major by-product) are considered – another 7.3 to 8.4 million tonnes (beyond the 5.9 Mt known economic resources), which takes us past 200 years’ supply at today’s rate of consumption. This still ignores the technological factor mentioned below. It also omits unconventional resources (U recoverable as minor by-product) such as phosphate/ phosphorite deposits (up to 22 Mt U), black shales (schists – 5.2 Mt U) and lignite (0.7 Mt U), and even seawater (up to 4000 Mt), which would be uneconomic to extract in the foreseeable future, although Japanese trials using a polymer braid have suggested costs a bit over$600/kgU. US work has developed this using polyethylene fibres coated with amidoxime, which binds uranium so that it can be stripped with acid. Research proceeds.

It is clear from this Figure that known uranium resources have increased almost threefold since 1975, in line with expenditure on uranium exploration. (The decrease in the decade 1983-93 is due to some countries tightening their criteria for reporting. If this were carried back two decades, the lines would fit even more closely. Since 2007 some resources have been reclassified into higher-cost categories.) Increased exploration expenditure in the future is likely to result in a corresponding increase in known resources, even as inflation increases costs of recovery and hence tends to decrease the figures in each cost category.

About 20% of US uranium came from central Florida’s phosphate deposits to the mid 1990s, as a by-product, but it then became uneconomic. With higher uranium prices today the resource is being examined again, as is another lower-grade one in Morocco. Plans for Florida extend only to 400 tU/yr at this stage. See also companion paper on Uranium from Phosphate Deposits.

Coal ash is another easily-accessible though minor uranium resource in many parts of the world. In the 1960s and 1970s, some 1100 tU was recovered from coal ash in the USA. In central Yunnan province in China the coal uranium content varies up to 315 ppm and averages about 65 ppm. The ash averages about 210 ppm U (0.021%U) – above the cut-off level for some uranium mines. The Xiaolongtang power station ash heap contains over 1000 tU, with annual arisings of 190 tU. Recovery of this by acid leaching is about 70% in trials. This project has yet to announce any commercial production, however. Economic feasibility depends not only on grade but the composition of the ash – high acid consumption can make recovery uneconomic. World potential is likely to be less than 700 tU per year.

Widespread use of the fast breeder reactor could increase the utilisation of uranium 50-fold or more. This type of reactor can be started up on plutonium derived from conventional reactors and operated in closed circuit with its reprocessing plant. Such a reactor, supplied with natural or depleted uranium as a fuel source (NB not actual fuel), can be operated so that each tonne of ore yields vastly more energy than in a conventional reactor.

## Reactor fuel requirements

The world’s power reactors, with combined capacity of some 375 GWe, require about 68,000 tonnes of uranium from mines or elsewhere each year. While this capacity is being run more productively, with higher capacity factors and reactor power levels, the uranium fuel requirement is increasing, but not necessarily at the same rate. The factors increasing fuel demand are offset by a trend for higher burn-up of fuel and other efficiencies, so demand is steady. (Over the years 1980 to 2008 the electricity generated by nuclear power increased 3.6-fold while uranium used increased by a factor of only 2.5.)

Reducing the tails assay in enrichment reduces the amount of natural uranium required for a given amount of fuel. Reprocessing of used fuel from conventional light water reactors also utilises present resources more efficiently, by a factor of about 1.3 overall.

The 2014 Red Book said that efficiencies on power plant operation and lower enrichment tails assays meant that uranium demand per unit capacity was falling, and the report’s generic reactor fuel consumption was reduced from 175 tU per GWe per year at 0.30% tails assay (2011 report) to 160 tU per GWe per year at 0.25% tails assay (2016 report). The corresponding U3O8 figures are 206 tonnes and 189 tonnes. Note that these figures are generalisations across the industry and across many different reactor types.

Today’s reactor fuel requirements are met from primary supply (direct mine output – 78% in 2009) and secondary sources: commercial stockpiles, nuclear weapons stockpiles, recycled plutonium and uranium from reprocessing used fuel, and some from re-enrichment of depleted uranium tails (left over from original enrichment). These various secondary sources make uranium unique among energy minerals.

## Nuclear weapons as a source of fuel

An important source of nuclear fuel is the world’s nuclear weapons stockpiles. Since 1987 the United States and countries of the former USSR have signed a series of disarmament treaties to reduce the nuclear arsenals of the signatory countries by approximately 80 percent.

The weapons contained a great deal of uranium enriched to over 90 percent U-235 (i.e. up to 25 times the proportion in reactor fuel). Some weapons have plutonium-239, which can be used in mixed-oxide (MOX) fuel for civil reactors. From 2000 the dilution of 30 tonnes of military high-enriched uranium has been displacing about 10,600 tonnes of uranium oxide per year from mines, which represents about 15% of the world’s reactor requirements.

Details of the utilisation of military stockpiles are in the paper Military warheads as a source of nuclear fuel.

## Other secondary sources of uranium

The most obvious source is civil stockpiles held by utilities and governments. The amount held here is difficult to quantify, due to commercial confidentiality. At the end of 2014 some 217,000 tU total inventory was estimated for utilities – USA 45,000 t, EU 53,000 t, China 74,000 t, other East Asia 45,0000 t (World Nuclear Association 2015 Nuclear Fuel Report). These reserves are expected to be drawn down somewhat, but they will be maintained at a fairly high level to to provide energy security for utilities and governments.

Recycled uranium and plutonium is another source, and currently saves 1700-2000 tU per year of primary supply, depending on whether just the plutonium or also the uranium is considered. This is expected to rise to 3000-4000 tU/yr by 2020. In fact, plutonium is quickly recycled as MOX fuel, whereas the reprocessed uranium (RepU) is mostly stockpiled, and the inventory at the end of 2014 was estimated at 75,000 tU. See also Processing of Used Nuclear Fuel for Recycle paper.

Re-enrichment of depleted uranium (DU, enrichment tails) is another secondary source. There is about 1.3 million tonnes of depleted uranium available, from both military and civil enrichment activity since the 1940s, most at tails assay of 0.25-0.35% U-235 (though the USA has 114,000 tU assaying 0.34% or more). Non-nuclear uses of DU are very minor relative to annual arisings of over 40,000 tU per year. This leaves most DU available for mixing with recycled plutonium on MOX fuel or as a future fuel resource for fast neutron reactors. However, some that has relatively high assay can be fed through under-utilised enrichment plants to produce natural uranium equivalent, or even enriched uranium ready for fuel fabrication. Russian enrichment plants have treated 10-15,000 tonnes per year of DU assaying over 0.3% U-235, stripping it down to 0.1% and producing a few thousand tonnes per year of natural uranium equivalent. This Russian program treating Western tails has now finished, but a new US one is expected to start when surplus capacity is available, treating about 140,000 tonnes of old DU assaying 0.4% U-235.

Underfeeding at enrichment plants is a significant source of secondary supply, especially since the Fukushima accident reduced enrichment demand for several years. This is where the operational tails assay is lower than the contracted/transactional assay, and the enricher sets aside some surplus natural uranium, which it is free to sell (either as natural uranium or as enriched uranium product) on its own account. UxC estimates that with an optimum tails assay of 0.23% in 2013, the enrichers have the potential to contribute up to 7700 tU per year to world markets by underfeeding. The 2015 edition of the World Nuclear Association’s Nuclear Fuel Report estimates 5000 to 8000 tU/yr from this source to the mid-2020s.

## International fuel reserves

There have been three major initiatives to set up international reserves of enriched fuel, two of them multilateral ones, with fuel to be available under International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) auspices despite any political interruptions which might affect countries needing them. The third is under US auspices, and also to meet needs arising from supply disruptions.

### American assured fuel supply

In 2005 the US government announced plans for the establishment of a mechanism to ensure fuel supply for use in commercial reactors in foreign countries where there has been supply disruption. The fuel would come from downblending 17.4 tonnes of high-enriched uranium (HEU). In August 2011 US Department of Energy announced an expanded scope for the program so it would also serve US utility needs, and now be called the American Assured Fuel Supply (AFS). At that point most of the downblending of the HEU had been completed, and the scheme was ready to operate. The AFS will comprise about 230 tonnes of low-enriched uranium (with another 60t from downblending being sold on the market to pay for the work). The AFS program is administered by the US National Nuclear Safety Administration, foreign access must be through a US entity, and the fuel will be sold at current market prices. The 230 t amount is equivalent to about six reloads for a 1000 MWe reactor.

## Mineral resources and reserves

The following are internationally-recognised categories based on Australia’s JORC code, which the Canadian NI 43-101 code follows.

A ‘mineral resource’ is a known concentration of minerals in the Earth’s crust with reasonable prospects for eventual economic extraction. Mineral resources are sub-divided, in order of increasing geological confidence, into inferred, indicated and measured categories.

• An ‘inferred’ mineral resource is that part of a mineral resource for which tonnage, grade and mineral content can be estimated with only a low level of confidence. The information on which it is based is limited, or of uncertain quality and reliability.
• An ‘indicated’ mineral resource is that part of a mineral resource for which tonnage, grade and mineral content can be estimated with a reasonable level of confidence. It is based on exploration, sampling and testing information which is adequate to assume but not confirm geological and/or grade continuity.
• A ‘measured’ mineral resource is that part of a mineral resource for which tonnage, physical characteristics, grade and mineral content can be estimated with a high level of confidence. It is based on detailed and reliable exploration, sampling and testing information with locations spaced closely enough to confirm geological and grade continuity.

A ‘mineral’ reserve (or ore reserve) is the economically mineable part of a measured and/or indicated mineral resource. It allows for dilution and losses which may occur when the material is mined. Appropriate assessments and studies will have been carried out, and include consideration of realistically assumed mining, metallurgical, economic, marketing, legal, environmental, social and governmental factors. Mineral or ore reserves are sub-divided in order of increasing confidence into probable mineral/ore reserves and proved mineral/ore reserves.

• A ‘probable’ mineral reserve (or probable ore reserve) is the economically mineable part of an indicated mineral resource. Studies to at least pre-feasibility level will have been carried out, demonstrating that extraction could reasonably be justified.
• A ‘proved’ mineral reserve (or proved ore reserve) is the economically mineable part of a measured mineral resource. Studies to at least pre-feasibility level will have been carried out, demonstrating that extraction is justified.

## Thorium as a nuclear fuel

Today uranium is the only fuel supplied for nuclear reactors. However, thorium can also be utilised as a fuel for CANDU reactors or in reactors specially designed for this purpose. Neutron efficient reactors, such as CANDU, are capable of operating on a thorium fuel cycle, once they are started using a fissile material such as U-235 or Pu-239. Then the thorium (Th-232) atom captures a neutron in the reactor to become fissile uranium (U-233), which continues the reaction. Some advanced reactor designs are likely to be able to make use of thorium on a substantial scale.

The thorium fuel cycle has some attractive features, though it is not yet in commercial use. Thorium is reported to be about three times as abundant in the earth’s crust as uranium. The 2009 IAEA-NEA Red Book lists 3.6 million tonnes of known and estimated resources as reported, but points out that this excludes data from much of the world, and estimates about 6 million tonnes overall. See also companion paper on Thorium.

## Main references

OECD NEA & IAEA, 2014, Uranium 2014: Resources, Production and Demand
WNA 2013, The Global Nuclear Fuel Market – Supply and Demand 2013-2030
UN Institute for Disarmament Research, Yury Yudin (ed) 2011, Multilateralization of the Nuclear Fuel Cycle – The First Practical Steps
Monnet, A, CEA, Uranium from Coal Ash: Resource assessment and outlook, IAEA URAM 2014

Appendix 1 —- (Sept 2005)

Substantially derived from 2003 WNA Symposium paper by Colin MacDonald, Uranium: Sustainable Resource or Limit to Growth? – supplemented by his 2005 WNA Symposium paper and including a model Economic adjustments in the supply of a ‘non-renewable’ resource from Ian Hore-Lacy.

## The Sustainability of Mineral Resources

### with reference to uranium

It is commonly asserted that because “the resources of the earth are finite”, therefore we must face some day of reckoning, and will need to plan for “negative growth”. All this, it is pointed out, is because these resources are being consumed at an increasing rate to support our western lifestyle and to cater for the increasing demands of developing nations. The assertion that we are likely to run out of resources is a re-run of the “Limits to Growth” argument (Club of Rome 1972 popularised by Meadows et al in Limits of Growth at that time. (A useful counter to it is W Berckerman, In Defence of Economic Growth, also Singer, M, Passage to a Human World, Hudson Inst. 1987). In the decade following its publication world bauxite reserves increased 35%, copper 25%, nickel 25%, uranium and coal doubled, gas increased 70% and even oil increased 6%.) fashionable in the early 1970s, which was substantially disowned by its originators, the Club of Rome, and shown up as nonsense with the passing of time. It also echoes similar concerns raised by economists in the 1930s, and by Malthus at the end of the 18th Century.

In recent years there has been persistent misunderstanding and misrepresentation of the abundance of mineral resources, with the assertion that the world is in danger of actually running out of many mineral resources. While congenial to common sense if the scale of the Earth’s crust is ignored, it lacks empirical support in the trend of practically all mineral commodity prices and published resource figures over the long term. In recent years some have promoted the view that limited supplies of natural uranium are the Achilles heel of nuclear power as the sector contemplates a larger contribution to future clean energy, notwithstanding the small amount of it required to provide very large amounts of energy.

Uranium supply news is usually framed within a short-term perspective. It concerns who is producing with what resources, who might produce or sell, and how does this balance with demand? However, long-term supply analysis enters the realm of resource economics. This discipline has as a central concern the understanding of not just supply/demand/price dynamics for known resources, but also the mechanisms for replacing resources with new ones presently unknown. Such a focus on sustainability of supply is unique to the long view. Normally-functioning metals markets and technology change provide the drivers to ensure that supply at costs affordable to consumers is continuously replenished, both through the discovery of new resources and the re-definition (in economic terms) of known ones.

Of course the resources of the earth are indeed finite, but three observations need to be made: first, the limits of the supply of resources are so far away that the truism has no practical meaning. Second, many of the resources concerned are either renewable or recyclable (energy minerals and zinc are the main exceptions, though the recycling potential of many materials is limited in practice by the energy and other costs involved). Third, available reserves of ‘non-renewable’ resources are constantly being renewed, mostly faster than they are used.

There are three principal areas where resource predictions have faltered:

• predictions have not accounted for gains in geological knowledge and understanding of mineral deposits;
• they have not accounted for technologies utilised to discover, process and use them;
• economic principles have not been taken into account, which means that resources are thought of only in present terms, not in terms of what will be economic through time, nor with concepts of substitution in mind.

What then does sustainability in relation to mineral resources mean? The answer lies in the interaction of these three things which enable usable resources (Some licence is taken in the use of this word in the following, strictly it is reserves of minerals which are created) effectively to be created. They are brought together in the diagram below.

Numerous economists have studied resource trends to determine which measures should best reflect resource scarcity (Tilton, J. On Borrowed Time? Assessing the threat of mineral depletion, Resources for the Future, Washington DC 2002). Their consensus view is that costs and prices, properly adjusted for inflation, provide a better early warning system for long-run resource scarcity than do physical measures such as resource quantities.

Historic data show that the most commonly used metals have declined in both their costs and real commodity prices over the past century. Such price trends are the most telling evidence of lack of scarcity. Uranium has been a case in point, relative to its late 1970s price of US$40/lb U3O8. An anecdote underlines this basic truth: In 1980 two eminent professors, fierce critics of one another, made a bet regarding the real market price of five metal commodities over the next decade. Paul Ehrlich, a world-famous ecologist, bet that because the world was exceeding its carrying capacity, food and commodities would start to run out in the 1980s and prices in real terms would therefore rise. Julian Simon, an economist, said that resources were effectively so abundant, and becoming effectively more so, that prices would fall in real terms. He invited Ehrlich to nominate which commodities would be used to test the matter, and they settled on these (chrome, copper, nickel, tin and tungsten). In 1990 Ehrlich paid up – all the prices had fallen. However, quantities of known resources tell a similar and consistent story. To cite one example, world copper reserves in the 1970s represented only 30 years of then-current production (6.4 Mt/yr). Many analysts questioned whether this resource base could satisfy the large expected requirements of the telecommunications industry by 2000. But by 1994, world production of copper had doubled (12 Mt/yr) and the available reserves were still enough for another 30 years. The reserve multiple of current production remained the same. Another way to understand resource sustainability is in terms of economics and capital conservation. Under this perspective, mineral resources are not so much rare or scarce as they are simply too expensive to discover if you cannot realise the profits from your discovery fairly soon. Simple economic considerations therefore discourage companies from discovering much more than society needs through messages of reduced commodity prices during times of oversupply. Economically rational players will only invest in finding these new reserves when they are most confident of gaining a return from them, which usually requires positive price messages caused by undersupply trends. If the economic system is working correctly and maximizing capital efficiency, there should never be more than a few decades of any resource commodity in reserves at any point in time. The fact that many commodities have more resources available than efficient economic theory might suggest may be partly explained by two characteristics of mineral exploration cycles. First, the exploration sector tends to over-respond to the positive price signals through rapid increases in worldwide expenditures (which increases the rate of discoveries), in particular through the important role of more speculatively-funded junior exploration companies. Exploration also tends to make discoveries in clusters that have more to do with new geological knowledge than with efficient capital allocation theory. As an example, once diamonds were known to exist in northern Canada, the small exploration boom that accompanied this resulted in several large discoveries – more than the market may have demanded at this time. These patterns are part of the dynamics that lead to commodity price cycles. New resource discoveries are very difficult to precisely match with far-off future demand, and the historic evidence suggests that the exploration process over-compensates for every small hint of scarcity that the markets provide. Another important element in resource economics is the possibility of substitution of commodities. Many commodity uses are not exclusive – should they become too expensive they can be substituted with other materials. Even if they become cheaper they may be replaced, as technology gains have the potential to change the style and cost of material usage. For example, copper, despite being less expensive in real terms than 30 years ago, is still being replaced by fibre optics in many communication applications. These changes to materials usage and commodity demand provide yet another dimension to the simple notion of depleting resources and higher prices. In summary, historic metals price trends, when examined in the light of social and economic change through time, demonstrate that resource scarcity is a double-edged sword. The same societal trends that have increased metals consumption, tending to increase prices, have also increased the available wealth to invest in price-reducing knowledge and technology. These insights provide the basis for the economic sustainability of metals, including uranium. ### Geological knowledge Whatever minerals are in the earth, they cannot be considered usable resources unless they are known. There must be a constant input of time, money and effort to find out what is there. This mineral exploration endeavour is not merely fossicking or doing aerial magnetic surveys, but must eventually extend to comprehensive investigation of orebodies so that they can reliably be defined in terms of location, quantity and grade. Finally, they must be technically and economically quantified as mineral reserves. That is the first aspect of creating a resource. See section in paper for mineral resource and reserve categories. For reasons outlined above, measured resources of many minerals are increasing much faster than they are being used, due to exploration expenditure by mining companies and their investment in research. Simply on geological grounds, there is no reason to suppose that this trend will not continue. Today, proven mineral resources worldwide are more than we inherited in the 1970s, and this is especially so for uranium. Simply put, metals which are more abundant in the Earth’s crust are more likely to occur as the economic concentrations we call mineral deposits. They also need to be reasonably extractable from their host minerals. By these measures, uranium compares very well with base and precious metals. Its average crustal abundance of 2.7 ppm is comparable with that of many other metals such as tin, tungsten, and molybdenum. Many common rocks such as granite and shales contain even higher uranium concentrations of 5 to 25 ppm. Also, uranium is predominantly bound in minerals which are not difficult to break down in processing. As with crustal abundance, metals which occur in many different kinds of deposits are easier to replenish economically, since exploration discoveries are not constrained to only a few geological settings. Currently, at least 14 different types of uranium deposits are known, occurring in rocks of wide range of geological age and geographic distribution. There are several fundamental geological reasons why uranium deposits are not rare, but the principal reason is that uranium is relatively easy both to place into solution over geological time, and to precipitate out of solution in chemically reducing conditions. This chemical characteristic alone allows many geological settings to provide the required hosting conditions for uranium resources. Related to this diversity of settings is another supply advantage ?the wide range in the geological ages of host rocks ensures that many geopolitical regions are likely to host uranium resources of some quality. Unlike the metals which have been in demand for centuries, society has barely begun to utilise uranium. As serious non-military demand did not materialise until significant nuclear generation was built by the late 1970s, there has been only one cycle of exploration-discovery-production, driven in large part by late 1970s price peaks (MacDonald, C, Rocks to reactors: Uranium exploration and the market. Proceedings of WNA Symposium 2001). This initial cycle has provided more than enough uranium for the last three decades and several more to come. Clearly, it is premature to speak about long-term uranium scarcity when the entire nuclear industry is so young that only one cycle of resource replenishment has been required. It is instead a reassurance that this first cycle of exploration was capable of meeting the needs of more than half a century of nuclear energy demand. Related to the youthfulness of nuclear energy demand is the early stage that global exploration had reached before declining uranium prices stifled exploration in the mid-1980s. The significant investment in uranium exploration during the 1970-82 exploration cycle would have been fairly efficient in discovering exposed uranium deposits, due to the ease of detecting radioactivity. Still, very few prospective regions in the world have seen the kind of intensive knowledge and technology-driven exploration that the Athabasca Basin of Canada has seen since 1975. This fact has huge positive implications for future uranium discoveries, because the Athabasca Basin history suggests that the largest proportion of future resources will be as deposits discovered in the more advanced phases of exploration. Specifically, only 25% of the 635,000 tonnes of U3O8 discovered so far in the Athabasca Basin could be discovered during the first phase of surface-based exploration. A sustained second phase, based on advances in deep penetrating geophysics and geological models, was required to discover the remaining 75%. Another dimension to the immaturity of uranium exploration is that it is by no means certain that all possible deposit types have even been identified. Any estimate of world uranium potential made only 30 years ago would have missed the entire deposit class of unconformity deposits that have driven production since then, simply because geologists did not know this class existed. ### Technology It is meaningless to speak of a resource until someone has thought of a way to use any particular material. In this sense, human ingenuity quite literally creates new resources, historically, currently and prospectively. That is the most fundamental level at which technology creates resources, by making particular minerals usable in new ways. Often these then substitute to some degree for others which are becoming scarcer, as indicated by rising prices. Uranium was not a resource in any meaningful sense before 1940. More particularly, if a known mineral deposit cannot be mined, processed and marketed economically, it does not constitute a resource in any practical sense. Many factors determine whether a particular mineral deposit can be considered a usable resource – the scale of mining and processing, the technological expertise involved, its location in relation to markets, and so on. The application of human ingenuity, through technology, alters the significance of all these factors and is thus a second means of ‘creating’ resources. In effect, portions of the earth’s crust are reclassified as resources. A further aspect of this is at the manufacturing and consumer level, where technology can make a given amount of resources go further through more efficient use.(aluminium can mass was reduced by 21% 1972-88, and motor cars each use about 30% less steel than 30 years ago) An excellent example of this application of technology to create resources is in the Pilbara region of Western Australia. Until the 1960s the vast iron ore deposits there were simply geological curiosities, despite their very high grade. Australia had been perceived as short of iron ore. With modern large-scale mining technology and the advent of heavy duty railways and bulk shipping which could economically get the iron ore from the mine (well inland) through the ports of Dampier and Port Hedland to Japan, these became one of the nation’s main mineral resources. For the last 45 years Hamersley Iron (Rio Tinto), Mount Newman (BHP-Billiton) and others have been at the forefront of Australia’s mineral exporters, drawing upon these ‘new’ orebodies. Just over a hundred years ago aluminium was a precious metal, not because it was scarce, but because it was almost impossible to reduce the oxide to the metal, which was therefore fantastically expensive. With the discovery of the Hall-Heroult process in 1886, the cost of producing aluminium plummeted to about one twentieth of what it had been and that metal has steadily become more commonplace. It now competes with iron in many applications, and copper in others, as well as having its own widespread uses in every aspect of our lives. Not only was a virtually new material provided for people’s use by this technological breakthrough, but enormous quantities of bauxite world-wide progressively became a valuable resource. Without the technological breakthrough, they would have remained a geological curiosity. Incremental improvements in processing technology at all plants are less obvious but nevertheless very significant also. Over many years they are probably as important as the historic technological breakthroughs. To achieve sustainability, the combined effects of mineral exploration and the development of technology need to be creating resources at least as fast as they are being used. There is no question that in respect to the minerals industry this is generally so, and with uranium it is also demonstrable. Recycling also helps, though generally its effect is not great. ### Economics Whether a particular mineral deposit is sensibly available as a resource will depend on the market price of the mineral concerned. If it costs more to get it out of the ground than its value warrants, it can hardly be classified as a resource (unless there is some major market distortion due to government subsidies of some kind). Therefore, the resources available will depend on the market price, which in turn depends on world demand for the particular mineral and the costs of supplying that demand. The dynamic equilibrium between supply and demand also gives rise to substitution of other materials when scarcity looms (or the price is artificially elevated). This then is the third aspect of creating resources. The best known example of the interaction of markets with resource availability is in the oil industry. When in 1972 OPEC suddenly increased the price of oil fourfold, several things happened at both producer and consumer levels. The producers dramatically increased their exploration effort, and applied ways to boost oil recovery from previously ‘exhausted’ or uneconomic wells. At the consumer end, increased prices meant massive substitution of other fuels and greatly increased capital expenditure in more efficient plant. As a result of the former activities, oil resources increased dramatically. As a result of the latter, oil use fell slightly to 1975 and in the longer perspective did not increase globally from 1973 to 1986. Forecasts in 1972, which had generally predicted a doubling of oil consumption in ten years, proved quite wrong. Oil will certainly become scarce one day, probably before most other mineral resources, which will continue to drive its price up. As in the 1970s, this will in turn cause increased substitution for oil and bring about greater efficiencies in its use as equilibrium between supply and demand is maintained by the market mechanism. Certainly oil will never run out in any absolute sense – it will simply become too expensive to use as liberally as we now do. Another example is provided by aluminium. During World War II, Germany and Japan recovered aluminium from kaolinite, a common clay, at slightly greater cost than it could be obtained from bauxite. Due to the operation of these three factors the world’s economically demonstrated resources of most minerals have risen faster than the increased rate of usage over the last 50 years, so that more are available now, notwithstanding liberal usage. This is largely due to the effects of mineral exploration and the fact that new discoveries have exceeded consumption. ### Replacement of uranium A characteristic of metals resource replacement is that the mineral discovery process itself adds a small cost relative to the value of the discovered metals. As an example, the huge uranium reserves of Canada’s Athabasca Basin were discovered for about US$1.00/kgU (2003 dollars, including unsuccessful exploration). Similar estimates for world uranium resources, based on published IAEA exploration expenditure data and assuming that these expenditures yielded only the past uranium produced plus the present known economic resources categories at up to US$80/kg (Uranium 2003: Resources, Production and demand. Nuclear Energy Agency and IAEA, OECD Publications 2004) yields slightly higher costs of about US$1.50/kgU. This may reflect the higher component of State-driven exploration globally, some of which had national self-sufficiency objectives that may not have aligned with industry economic standards.

From an economic perspective, these exploration costs are essentially equivalent to capital investment costs, albeit spread over a longer time period. It is, however, this time lag between the exploration expense and the start of production that confounds attempts to analyse exploration economics using strict discounted cash flow methods. The positive cash flows from production occur at least 10-15 years into the future, so that their present values are obviously greatly reduced, especially if one treats the present as the start of exploration. This creates a paradox, since large resource companies must place a real value on simply surviving and being profitable for many decades into the future; and, without exploration discoveries, all mining companies must expire with their reserves. Recent advances in the use of real options and similar methods are providing new ways to understand this apparent paradox. A key insight is that time, rather than destroying value through discounting, actually adds to the option value, as does the potential of price volatility. Under this perspective, resource companies create value by obtaining future resources which can be exploited optimally under a range of possible economic conditions. Techniques such as these are beginning to add analytical support to what have always been intuitive understandings by resource company leaders – that successful exploration creates profitable mines and adds value to company shares.

Since uranium is part of the energy sector, another way to look at exploration costs is on the basis of energy value. This allows comparisons with the energy investment cost for other energy fuels, especially fossil fuels which will have analogous costs related to the discovery of the resources. From numerous published sources, the finding costs of crude oil have averaged around US$6/bbl over at least the past three decades. Uranium’s finding costs make up only 2% of the recent spot price of US$ 30/lb ($78/kgU), while the oil finding costs are 12% of a recent spot price of US$ 50/bbl.

By these measures, uranium is a very inexpensive energy source to replenish, as society has accepted far higher energy replacement costs to sustain oil resources. This low basic energy resource cost is one argument in favour of a nuclear-hydrogen solution to long-term replacement of oil as a transportation fuel.

### Forecasting replenishment

Supply forecasters are often reluctant to consider the additive impacts of exploration on new supply, arguing that assuming discoveries is as risky and speculative as the exploration business itself. Trying to predict any single discovery certainly is speculative. However, as long as the goal is merely to account for the estimated total discovery rate at a global level, a proxy such as estimated exploration expenditures can be used. Since expenditures correlate with discovery rate, the historic (or adjusted) resources discovered per unit of expenditure will provide a reasonable estimate of resource gains to be expected. As long as the time lag between discovery and production is accounted for, this kind of dynamic forecasting is more likely to provide a basis for both price increases and decreases, which metals markets have historically demonstrated.

Without these estimates of uranium resource replenishment through exploration cycles, long-term supply-demand analyses will tend to have a built-in pessimistic bias (i.e. towards scarcity and higher prices), that will not reflect reality. Not only will these forecasts tend to overestimate the price required to meet long-term demand, but the opponents of nuclear power use them to bolster arguments that nuclear power is unsustainable even in the short term. In a similar fashion, these finite-resources analyses also lead observers of the industry to conclude that fast breeder reactor technology will soon be required. This may indeed make a gradual appearance, but if uranium follows the price trends we see in other metals, its development will be due to strategic policy decisions more than uranium becoming too expensive.

The resource economics perspective tells us that new exploration cycles should be expected to add uranium resources to the world inventory, and to the extent that some of these may be of higher quality and involve lower operating cost than resources previously identified, this will tend to mitigate price increases. This is precisely what has happened in uranium, as the low-cost discoveries in Canada’s Athabasca Basin have displaced higher-cost production from many other regions, lowering the cost curve and contributing to lower prices. Secondary uranium supplies, to the extent that they can be considered as a very low-cost mine, have simply extended this price trend.

The first exploration and mining cycle for uranium occurred about 1970 to 1985. It provided enough uranium to meet world demand for some 80 years, if we view present known resources as arising from it. With the rise in uranium prices to September 2005 and the concomitant increase (boom?) in mineral exploration activity, it is clear that we have the start of a second such cycle, mid-2003 to ??. The price increase was brought about by diminution of secondary supplies coupled with a realization that primary supplies needed to increase substantially.

Several significant decisions on mine development and increased exploration by major producers will enable this expansion of supply, coupled with smaller producers coming on line. The plethora of junior exploration companies at the other end of the spectrum which are finding no difficulty whatever in raising capital are also a positive sign that a vigorous new exploration and mining cycle is cranking up. From lows of around US$55 million per year in 2000, world uranium exploration expenditure rose to about US$ 110 million in 2004 and is expected to be US$185 million in 2005, half of this being from the junior exploration sector. The new cycle is also showing considerable regional diversification. Measured from 1990, cycle 2 totals US$ 1.5 billion to 2005, compared with a total of about three times this figure (uncorrected) for the whole of the first cycle.

### Depletion and sustainability

Conversely, the exhaustion of mineral resources during mining is real. Resource economists do not deny the fact of depletion, nor its long-term impact – that in the absence of other factors, depletion will tend to drive commodity prices up. But as we have seen, mineral commodities can become more available or less scarce over time if the cost-reducing effects of new technology and exploration are greater than the cost-increasing effects of depletion.

One development that would appear to argue against economic sustainability is the growing awareness of the global depletion of oil, and in some regions such as North America, natural gas. But oil is a fundamentally different material. This starts with geology, where key differences include the fact that oil and gas were formed by only one process: the breakdown of plant life on Earth. Compared with the immense volumes of rock-forming minerals in the Earth? crust, living organisms on top of it have always been a very tiny proportion. But a more important fact is that the world has consumed oil, and recently natural gas as well, in a trajectory of rapid growth virtually unmatched by any other commodity. Consumption growth rates of up to 10% annually over the past 50 years are much higher than we see for other commodities, and support the contention that oil is a special depletion case for several reasons: its geological occurrence is limited, it has been inexpensive to extract, its energy utility has been impossible to duplicate for the price, and its resulting depletion rates have been incredibly high.

This focus on rates of depletion suggests that one of the dimensions of economic sustainability of metals has to do with their relative rates of depletion. Specifically, it suggests that economic sustainability will hold indefinitely as long as the rate of depletion of mineral resources is slower than the rate at which it is offset. This offsetting force will be the sum of individual factors that work against depletion, and include cost-reducing technology and knowledge, lower cost resources through exploration advances, and demand shifting through substitution of materials.

An economic sustainability balance of this type also contemplates that, at some future point, the offsetting factors may not be sufficient to prevent irreversible depletion-induced price increases, and it is at this point that substituting materials and technologies must come into play to take away demand. In the case of rapid oil depletion, that substitute appears to be hydrogen as a transport fuel. Which raises the question of how the hydrogen is produced, and nuclear energy seems the most likely means of that, using high-temperature reactors.

From a detached viewpoint all this may look like mere technological optimism. But to anyone closely involved it is obvious and demonstrable. Furthermore, it is illustrated by the longer history of human use of the Earth’s mineral resources. Abundance, scarcity, substitution, increasing efficiency of use, technological breakthroughs in discovery, recovery and use, sustained incremental improvements in mineral recovery and energy efficiency – all these comprise the history of minerals and humankind.

http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/uranium-resources/supply-of-uranium.aspx

# 7 Uranium One Facts Every American Should Know

## Hillary Clinton and the Obama administration find themselves at the center of an explosive scandal involving the transfer of 20 percent of all U.S. uranium to Russia via the sale of the Uranium One company, just as nine foreign investors in the deal funneled $145 million to the Clinton Foundation to help grease the wheels. Here are the seven facts about the Uranium One deal you need to know: 1. Peter Schweizer Broke the Uranium One Scandal Government Accountability Institute (GAI) President and Breitbart News Senior Editor-at-Large Peter Schweizer broke the Uranium One scandal in his book Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich. In the book, he reported that Clinton’s State Department, along with other federal agencies, approved the transfer of 20 percent of all U.S. uranium to Russia and that nine foreign investors in the deal gave$145 million to Hillary and Bill Clinton’s personal charity, the Clinton Foundation.
1. The New York Times Confirmed the Scandal in 2015
The New York Times confirmed Schweizer’s Uranium One revelations in a 4,000-word front-page story by a Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative reporter. It detailed how the Russian energy giant Rosatom had taken over the Canadian firm with three separate purchases between 2009 and 2013, largely coinciding with Hillary Clinton’s time as secretary of state.
1. The FBI Uncovered Evidence that Russian Money Was Funneled to the Clinton Foundation
The Hill reported last week that ahead of the deal, the FBI had uncovered “substantial evidence that Russian nuclear industry officials were engaged in bribery, kickbacks, extortion and money laundering” to expand Russia’s nuclear footprint in the U.S. as early as 2009. The agency also found that Russian nuclear officials had routed millions of dollars to the U.S. to benefit the Clinton Foundation. The Justice Department would sit on the evidence for four years before looking to prosecute, by which time the deal had been approved.
1. Congress Is Now Investigating
The Senate Judiciary Committee has launched a probe into the scandal and has sent requests for more information to 10 federal agencies involved in the approval of the partial sale of Uranium One, asking what they knew about the FBI investigation and when.
1. Bill Clinton Was Paid $500,000 for a Speech in Moscow Bill Clinton bagged a$500,000 speech in Moscow paid for by a Kremlin-backed bank shortly after Russia announced its intention to take a majority stake in the company. According to the Times, Clinton traveled to Moscow in June 2010, the same month Rosatom struck its deal for its majority stake in Uranium One.
1. The Clinton Foundation Took Big Bucks from Uranium Investors
According to theTimes, The Clinton Foundation received $2.35 million in donations from Ian Telfer, a mining investor who was also the chairman of Uranium One when Rosatom acquired it. It also received$31.3 million and a pledge for $100 million more from Frank Giustra, the Canadian mining financier whose company merged with Uranium One. 1. Senate Republicans Want an FBI Gag Order Lifted Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-IA) has called for the Justice Department to lift the gag order on the FBI’s whistleblower, indicating that he may have more explosive revelations related to the case and on what the Clintons and the Obama administration knew about the case and when they knew it. Adam Shaw is a Breitbart News politics reporter based in New York. Follow Adam on Twitter: @AdamShawNY http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/10/23/7-uranium-one-facts-every-american-should-know/ 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.CreditJoaquin 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. 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. 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.

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.

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.”

“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. 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.”

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.

“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.

# FBI uncovered Russian bribery plot before Obama administration approved controversial nuclear deal with Moscow

Before the Obama administration approved a controversial deal in 2010 giving Moscow control of a large swath of American uranium, the FBI had gathered substantial evidence that Russian nuclear industry officials were engaged in bribery, kickbacks, extortion and money laundering designed to grow Vladimir Putin’s atomic energy business inside the United States, according to government documents and interviews.

Federal agents used a confidential U.S. witness working inside the Russian nuclear industry to gather extensive financial records, make secret recordings and intercept emails as early as 2009 that showed Moscow had compromised an American uranium trucking firm with bribes and kickbacks in violation of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, FBI and court documents show.

They also obtained an eyewitness account — backed by documents — indicating Russian nuclear officials had routed millions of dollars to the U.S. designed to benefit former President Bill Clinton’s charitable foundation during the time Secretary of State Hillary Clinton served on a government body that provided a favorable decision to Moscow, sources told The Hill.

The racketeering scheme was conducted “with the consent of higher level officials” in Russia who “shared the proceeds” from the kickbacks, one agent declared in an affidavit years later.

Rather than bring immediate charges in 2010, however, the Department of Justice (DOJ) continued investigating the matter for nearly four more years, essentially leaving the American public and Congress in the dark about Russian nuclear corruption on U.S. soil during a period when the Obama administration made two major decisions benefiting Putin’s commercial nuclear ambitions.

The first decision occurred in October 2010, when the State Department and government agencies on the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States unanimously approved the partial sale of Canadian mining company Uranium One to the Russian nuclear giant Rosatom, giving Moscow control of more than 20 percent of America’s uranium supply.

When this sale was used by Trump on the campaign trail last year, Hillary Clinton’s spokesman said she was not involved in the committee review and noted the State Department official who handled it said she “never intervened … on any [Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States] matter.”

In 2011, the administration gave approval for Rosatom’s Tenex subsidiary to sell commercial uranium to U.S. nuclear power plants in a partnership with the United States Enrichment Corp. Before then, Tenex had been limited to selling U.S. nuclear power plants reprocessed uranium recovered from dismantled Soviet nuclear weapons under the 1990s Megatons to Megawatts peace program.

“The Russians were compromising American contractors in the nuclear industry with kickbacks and extortion threats, all of which raised legitimate national security concerns. And none of that evidence got aired before the Obama administration made those decisions,” a person who worked on the case told The Hill, speaking on condition of anonymity for fear of retribution by U.S. or Russian officials.

The Obama administration’s decision to approve Rosatom’s purchase of Uranium One has been a source of political controversy since 2015.

That’s when conservative author Peter Schweitzer and The New York Times documented how Bill Clinton collected hundreds of thousands of dollars in Russian speaking fees and his charitable foundation collected millions in donations from parties interested in the deal while Hillary Clinton presided on the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States.

The Obama administration and the Clintons defended their actions at the time, insisting there was no evidence that any Russians or donors engaged in wrongdoing and there was no national security reason for any member of the committee to oppose the Uranium One deal.

But FBI, Energy Department and court documents reviewed by The Hill show the FBI in fact had gathered substantial evidence well before the committee’s decision that Vadim Mikerin — the main Russian overseeing Putin’s nuclear expansion inside the United States — was engaged in wrongdoing starting in 2009.

Then-Attorney General Eric Holder was among the Obama administration officials joining Hillary Clinton on the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States at the time the Uranium One deal was approved. Multiple current and former government officials told The Hill they did not know whether the FBI or DOJ ever alerted committee members to the criminal activity they uncovered.

Spokesmen for Holder and Clinton did not return calls seeking comment. The Justice Department also didn’t comment.

Mikerin was a director of Rosatom’s Tenex in Moscow since the early 2000s, where he oversaw Rosatom’s nuclear collaboration with the United States under the Megatons to Megwatts program and its commercial uranium sales to other countries. In 2010, Mikerin was dispatched to the U.S. on a work visa approved by the Obama administration to open Rosatom’s new American arm called Tenam.

Between 2009 and January 2012, Mikerin “did knowingly and willfully combine, conspire confederate and agree with other persons … to obstruct, delay and affect commerce and the movement of an article and commodity (enriched uranium) in commerce by extortion,” a November 2014 indictment stated.

His illegal conduct was captured with the help of a confidential witness, an American businessman, who began making kickback payments at Mikerin’s direction and with the permission of the FBI. The first kickback payment recorded by the FBI through its informant was dated Nov. 27, 2009, the records show.

In evidentiary affidavits signed in 2014 and 2015, an Energy Department agent assigned to assist the FBI in the case testified that Mikerin supervised a “racketeering scheme” that involved extortion, bribery, money laundering and kickbacks that were both directed by and provided benefit to more senior officials back in Russia.

“As part of the scheme, Mikerin, with the consent of higher level officials at TENEX and Rosatom (both Russian state-owned entities) would offer no-bid contracts to US businesses in exchange for kickbacks in the form of money payments made to some offshore banks accounts,” Agent David Gadren testified.

“Mikerin apparently then shared the proceeds with other co-conspirators associated with TENEX in Russia and elsewhere,” the agent added.

The investigation was ultimately supervised by then-U.S. Attorney Rod Rosenstein, an Obama appointee who now serves as President Trump’s deputy attorney general, and then-Assistant FBI Director Andrew McCabe, now the deputy FBI director under Trump, Justice Department documents show.

Both men now play a key role in the current investigation into possible, but still unproven, collusion between Russia and Donald Trump’s campaign during the 2016 election cycle. McCabe is under congressional and Justice Department inspector general investigation in connection with money his wife’s Virginia state Senate campaign accepted in 2015 from now-Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe at a time when McAuliffe was reportedly under investigation by the FBI. The probe is not focused on McAuliffe’s conduct but rather on whether McCabe’s attendance violated the Hatch Act or other FBI conflict rules.

The connections to the current Russia case are many. The Mikerin probe began in 2009 when Robert Mueller, now the special counsel in charge of the Trump case, was still FBI director. And it ended in late 2015 under the direction of then-FBI Director James Comey, whom Trump fired earlier this year.

Its many twist and turns aside, the FBI nuclear industry case proved a gold mine, in part because it uncovered a new Russian money laundering apparatus that routed bribe and kickback payments through financial instruments in Cyprus, Latvia and Seychelles. A Russian financier in New Jersey was among those arrested for the money laundering, court records show.

The case also exposed a serious national security breach: Mikerin had given a contract to an American trucking firm called Transport Logistics International that held the sensitive job of transporting Russia’s uranium around the United States in return for more than $2 million in kickbacks from some of its executives, court records show. One of Mikerin’s former employees told the FBI that Tenex officials in Russia specifically directed the scheme to “allow for padded pricing to include kickbacks,” agents testified in one court filing. Bringing down a major Russian nuclear corruption scheme that had both compromised a sensitive uranium transportation asset inside the U.S. and facilitated international money laundering would seem a major feather in any law enforcement agency’s cap. But the Justice Department and FBI took little credit in 2014 when Mikerin, the Russian financier and the trucking firm executives were arrested and charged. The only public statement occurred a year later when the Justice Department put out a little-noticed press release in August 2015, just days before Labor Day. The release noted that the various defendants had reached plea deals. By that time, the criminal cases against Mikerin had been narrowed to a single charge of money laundering for a scheme that officials admitted stretched from 2004 to 2014. And though agents had evidence of criminal wrongdoing they collected since at least 2009, federal prosecutors only cited in the plea agreement a handful of transactions that occurred in 2011 and 2012, well after the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States’s approval. The final court case also made no mention of any connection to the influence peddling conversations the FBI undercover informant witnessed about the Russian nuclear officials trying to ingratiate themselves with the Clintons even though agents had gathered documents showing the transmission of millions of dollars from Russia’s nuclear industry to an American entity that had provided assistance to Bill Clinton’s foundation, sources confirmed to The Hill. The lack of fanfare left many key players in Washington with no inkling that a major Russian nuclear corruption scheme with serious national security implications had been uncovered. On Dec. 15, 2015, the Justice Department put out a release stating that Mikerin, “a former Russian official residing in Maryland was sentenced today to 48 months in prison” and ordered to forfeit more than$2.1 million.

Ronald Hosko, who served as the assistant FBI director in charge of criminal cases when the investigation was underway, told The Hill he did not recall ever being briefed about Mikerin’s case by the counterintelligence side of the bureau despite the criminal charges that were being lodged.

“I had no idea this case was being conducted,” a surprised Hosko said in an interview.

Likewise, major congressional figures were also kept in the dark.

Former Rep. Mike Rogers (R-Mich.), who chaired the House Intelligence Committee during the time the FBI probe was being conducted, told The Hill that he had never been told anything about the Russian nuclear corruption case even though many fellow lawmakers had serious concerns about the Obama administration’s approval of the Uranium One deal.

“Not providing information on a corruption scheme before the Russian uranium deal was approved by U.S. regulators and engage appropriate congressional committees has served to undermine U.S. national security interests by the very people charged with protecting them,” he said. “The Russian efforts to manipulate our American political enterprise is breathtaking.”

This story was updated at 6:50 p.m.

# Rosatom

 Type State corporation Nuclear energy Federal Agency on Atomic Energy 2007 RUB 821.2 billion[1] (2015) RUB 2,029 billion[1] (2015) rosatom.ru

Rosatom State Atomic Energy Corporation (RussianРосатомIPA: [rɐsˈatəm]) is a state corporation (non-profit organization) in Russia, established in 2007, the regulatory body of the Russian nuclear complex. It is headquartered in Moscow. Rosatom runs all nuclear assets of the Russian Federation, both civilian and military, totaling over 360 business and research units, including all Russian nuclear icebreaker ships. Along with commercial activities which promote nuclear power and nuclear fuel cycle facilities, it acts as a governmental agent, primarily in the field of national security (nuclear deterrence), nuclear and radiation safety, basic and applied science. Besides, it has the authority to fulfill on behalf of the Russian Federation the international commitments undertaken by the nation with regard to the peaceful use of atomic energy and non-proliferation.

Rosatom holds second place in the world in terms of uranium deposits ownership, fourth in terms of nuclear energy production, produces 40% of the world’s enriched uranium and 17% of the world’s nuclear fuel. Rosatom is the only vendor in the world able to offer the nuclear industry’s entire range of products and services, starting from specialized materials and equipment and all the way through to finished products such as nuclear power plants or nuclear powered icebreakers.[2]

The Russian Government has set three major goals for Rosatom: ensure sustainable development of the nuclear weapons complex; increase nuclear contribution in electricity generation (to 25%-30% by 2030) with continued safety improvements; and strengthen the country’s position on the global market of nuclear technology, by expanding traditional markets and acquiring new ones.

## Predecessors

The Ministry for Atomic Energy of the Russian Federation (RussianМинистерство по атомной энергии Российской Федерации), or MinAtom (МинАтом), was established on January 29, 1992 as a successor of the Ministry of Nuclear Engineering and Industry of the USSR. It was reorganized as the Federal Agency on Atomic Energy on March 9, 2004. According to the law adopted by the Russian parliament in November 2007, and signed by Russian President Putin in early December, the agency was transformed to a Russian state corporation.[3]

A programme of government support for the construction of nuclear power plants will finish in 2020.[4]

## Activities

Rosatom controls nuclear power holding Atomenergoprom, nuclear weapons companies, research institutes and nuclear and radiation safety agencies. It also represents Russia in the world in the field of peaceful use of nuclear energy and protection of the non-proliferation regime.[3] Rosatom manages the Russian fleet of nuclear icebreakers through Atomflot.

OKB Gidropress, which develops the current Russian nuclear power station range VVER, is a subsidiary of Rosatom.[5] OKBM Afrikantov, which develops the current Russian nuclear power station BN-series such as BN-800 and BN-1200, is a subsidiary of Rosatom.

In 2017 Rosatom decided to invest in wind power, believing that rapid cost reductions in the renewable industry will become a competitive threat to nuclear power, and has started to build wind turbines.[6] Rosatom was also concerned that nuclear export opportunities were becoming exhausted.[7] In October 2017 Rosatom was reported to be considering postponing commissioning new nuclear plants in Russia due to excess generation capacity and that new nuclear electricity prices are higher than for existing plant. The Russian government is considering reducing support for new nuclear under its support contracts, called Dogovor Postavki Moshnosti (DPM), which guarantee developers a return on investment through increased payments from consumers for 20 years.[8]

## Projects

Rosatom is currently building 37% of nuclear reactors under construction worldwide, generally of the OKB Gidropress VVER type.[9] Fennovoima, an electricity company in Finland, announced in September 2013 that it had chosen the OKB Gidropress VVER AES-2006 pressurized water reactor for a proposed power-generating station in PyhäjokiFinland. The construction contract is estimated to be worth 6.4 billion euros.[10]

On 11 November 2014 head of Rosatom Sergey Kiriyenko and head of Atomic Energy Organization of Iran Ali Akbar Salehi have signed a Protocol to Russian-Iranian Intergovernmental Agreement of 1992, according to which the sides will cooperate in construction of eight power generating units with VVER reactors. Four of these reactors are planned to be constructed for the second construction phase of Bushehr Nuclear Power Plant and four of them will be constructed on another site.[11]

Rosatom received $66.5 billion of foreign orders in 2012, including$28.9bn for nuclear plant construction, $24.7bn for uranium products and$12.9bn for nuclear fuel exports and associated activities.[12]

Rosatom also involves on large-scale projects such as ITER | ITER-Russia and FAIR | FAIR-Russia.

As of Jan 2017, the total portfolio orders of Rosatom reached US$300 billion.[13] ## Management The highest executive body of Rosatom is the Board of Trustees. The board is headed since 2005 by Sergei Kiriyenko. The other Board members are[14] ## See also ## References 1. “Financial and Economic Results” (PDF). Rosatom. Retrieved 25 August 2017. 2. Jump up^ “Benchmarking the global nuclear industry 2012 Heading for a fast recovery” (PDF). E&Y. 2012-10-11. Retrieved 2014-10-11. 3. . Rosatom. 2007-12-17 http://www.skirtingboards.com/blog/news-archive/rosatom-state-corporation-registered/. Missing or empty |title= (help) 4. Jump up^ “Rosatom chief outlines commercial vision”. World Nuclear News. 8 March 2017. Retrieved 10 March 2017. 5. Jump up^ “Our company”. OKB Gidropress. Retrieved 20 September2011. 6. Jump up^ Foy, Henry (28 June 2017). “Rosatom powers through nuclear industry woes”Financial Times. Retrieved 2 July 2017. 7. Jump up^ Cottee, Matthew (2 August 2017). “China’s nuclear export ambitions run into friction”Financial Times. Retrieved 6 August 2017. 8. Jump up^ “Rosatom considers delaying reactor commissioning”. Nuclear Engineering International. 30 October 2017. Retrieved 6 November 2017. 9. Jump up^ “The real front in US-Russia ‘Cold War’? Nuclear power”cnbc. 2014-03-23. Retrieved 2014-11-28. 10. Jump up^ “Fennovoima taps Russian supplier for nuke project”Yle Uutiset. September 3, 2013. Retrieved September 8, 2013. 11. Jump up^ “Россия и Иран расширяют сотрудничество в области мирного использования атомной энергии”. 2014-11-11. Retrieved 2014-11-11. 12. Jump up^ “Rosatom aims for$72bn in foreign orders for 2013”. Nuclear Engineering International. 13 November 2013. Retrieved 15 November 2013.
13. Jump up^ http://themoscowjournal.com/the-portfolio-of-orders-of-rosatom-reached-300-billion.html
14. Jump up^ Наблюдательный совет // Государственная корпорация по атомной энергии «Росатом»: Официальный сайт. Template:Проверено

# The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts Portfolio

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

# Suicide bomber strikes New York City at rush hour

An ISIS-inspired would-be suicide bomber set off a homemade explosive device at the Port Authority Bus Terminal subway station Monday morning, seriously wounding himself and injuring three others, law enforcement sources said.

The man — a 27-year-old Brooklyn man identified by high ranking police sources as Akayed Ullah — had wires attached to him and a 5-inch metal pipe bomb and battery pack strapped to his midsection as he walked through the Manhattan transit hub.

The man partially detonated the device, which he was carrying under the right side of his jacket, prematurely inside the passageway to the A, C and E trains at Eighth Avenue and West 42nd Street around 7:40 a.m., sources said.

Police quickly took the man into custody.

Former NYPD Commissioner Bill Bratton told MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” that the man was inspired by ISIS and possibly born in Bangladesh.

Bratton, who said the man had been living in the US for seven years, “was supposedly setting the device off in the name of ISIS.”

“So, definitely a terrorist attack, definitely intended,” Bratton said.

The man, who suffered the most serious injuries, was taken to Bellevue Hospital.

Three others suffered non-life-threatening injuries, police said. One person was taken to St. Lukes-Roosevelt Hospital, another to Mount Sinai and another person was treated at the scene, officials said.

Investigators briefly spoke to the alleged bomber, who told them he made the explosive device at the electrical company where he works.

Emergency personnel flooded the scene following the incident.

Mayor Bill de Blasio has been briefed on the incident.

The incident sent commuters into a frenzy.

A 911 caller, who would only identify herself as Carmen, told The Post: “I didn’t see anything, I just heard an explosion and I ran out like everyone did to look for the nearest exit.”

“I had like a panic attack, I couldn’t breathe. My stomach started hurting,” the witness said. “I’m doing better — I’m just trying to catch a train to go back home to College Point.”

Designer Chelsea LaSalle tweeted: “holy f–k. just was stuck in a running stampede at port authority bus terminal due to bomb scare. cops EVERYWHERE.”

LaSalle followed up her tweet with another that read: “not a scare. actual explosion moments before i was about to get on the subway.”

Commuter Keith Woodfin tweeted: “I was exiting the Port Authority and the National Guard was running towards something shouting ‘Go, Go, Go.’”

The FBI’s Joint Terrorism Task Force also is investigating the incident.

All MTA trains were bypassing Port Authority-42nd Street as police investigated the incident.

All New Jersey Transit buses were not stopping at Port Authority. NY Waterway was also running extra ferries.

Additional reporting by Lorena Mongelli and Max Jaeger

https://nypost.com/2017/12/11/explosion-reported-at-port-authority-bus-terminal/

# Botched Suicide Bombing Jolts New York Rush Hour, Injures Four

## Police say 27-year-old Akayed Ullah detonated a low-tech explosive device near the Port Authority Bus Terminal

Police respond to a report of an explosion near Times Square on Monday morning in New York. Police said the suspect was a Bangladeshi man, identified as 27-year-old Akayed Ullah, who tried to set off an explosive device he was wearing near the transit hub. He has been placed in custody.
CHARLES ZOELLER/ASSOCIATED PRESS
1 of 9

A bomber tried to set off an explosive device he had strapped to his body near one of New York City’s busiest transit hubs in an attempted terrorist attack that injured three bystanders, authorities said.

The suspect—a Bangladeshi immigrant identified as 27-year-old Akayed Ullah—was quickly apprehended and was transported to Bellevue Hospital for burns to his hands and abdomen, according to police and fire officials. Three civilians in proximity of the explosion suffered minor injuries and were treated at local hospitals, officials said.

“This was an attempted terrorist attack,” New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio told reporters. There are no other known incidents or specific threats to NYC, but there will be an expanded police presence, he said.

New York Gov. Cuomo described the suspect as a disgruntled “lone wolf,” who had been influenced by extremist groups online. Mr. Cuomo said the suspect downloaded information from the internet on how to make a low-tech, homemade bomb but noted that the device didn’t explode as planned.

“This is one of my worst nightmares—a terrorist attack in the subway system,” Mr. Cuomo said in an interview on CNN.

The explosion disrupted thousands of commuters during the morning rush hour. Multiple subway lines were evacuated, and the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey closed the entire bus station temporarily. Emergency personnel responded in force to the scene. By midmorning, some subway and bus service had been restored. An estimated 220,000 people pass through the transit hub each day.

“The choice of New York is for a reason. We are a beacon to the world and we actually show that a society of many faiths and many backgrounds can work,” said Mr. de Blasio. “The terrorists want to undermine that. So they yearn to attack New York City.”

“As New Yorkers our lives revolve around the subways. When we hear of an attack on the subways, it’s incredibly unsettling,” Mr. de Blasio said.

Botched Suicide Bombing in New York City Injures Four
A bomber partially detonated a home-made explosive at a Manhattan subway terminal Monday in an attempted terrorist attack. The suspect suffered severe burns and was taken into custody by the police. Photo: Twitter/@Breaking911

The suspect was walking in a crowd of commuters when the device was detonated, according to a Port Authority surveillance camera video that was confirmed by a federal law-enforcement official. The incident occurred around 7:20 a.m. ET while the suspect was walking eastbound in the underground corridor under 42nd Street, between Seventh and Eighth avenues, according to police. After the detonation, the suspect is surrounded in smoke, before dropping to the ground, based on the video footage.

But the device—which authorities described as a pipe bomb that was affixed to the suspect with Velcro and zip ties—only partially detonated, limiting the damage, according to officials. Mr. Cuomo said the explosive chemical in the bomb went off as planned, but the pipe didn’t explode.

When police officers arrived on the scene, they saw wires trailing between Mr. Ullah’s jacket and pants, according to a law-enforcement official. When they searched him, they found that he was carrying a nine-volt battery.

“It could’ve been much, much worse,” the official said. Police have recovered surveillance video of the incident.

Chelsea LaSalle, a 28-year-old graphic designer, was in Port Authority heading into the A, C, E subway when she heard screaming and more than 30 people started rushing at her.

Busy StationsFive busiest subway stations in New York City, by average weekday ridershipTHE WALL STREET JOURNALSource: Metropolitan Transportation Authority
42nd St. (Times Sq./PortAuthority)Grand CentralHerald SquareUnion SquarePenn Station (1, 2, 3)0 riders100,000200,00025,00050,00075,000125,000150,000175,000225,000

“People were screaming ‘Get out, get out’ and some were yelling ‘Bomb!’” she said.

Ms. LaSalle said everyone was running as fast as they could and pushed past her. “People wanted to get out and didn’t care what was in their way,” she said. “A lot of people looked really worried. Some people looked more confused than anything else.”

Hanan Kolko, a 57-year-old labor lawyer who lives in Montclair, N.J., said his NJ Transit bus from Clifton to the Port Authority crawled slowly through the Lincoln Tunnel. It took him 2 hours and 20 minutes to get to work, more than double the usual commute.

When his bus arrived around 9:40 a.m., he saw scores of law enforcement officers in the terminal, and his group was ushered out the Ninth Avenue exit because the Eighth Avenue side was blocked off.

“It was eerie because the Port Authority was empty except for people being escorted out,” he said. “It was a moment when I was proud to be a New Yorker,” he said. “We were going to carry on our day, regardless of whether some guy tried to plant a bomb. Law enforcement did a great job, and we got to go on and do our thing.”

In Washington, the Federal Bureau of Investigation said it was aware of the explosion in New York and coordinating with the New York City Police Department. The investigation into the incident is being led by the Joint Terrorism Task Force, a law enforcement group formed in 1980 that includes members of the NYPD and the FBI. The attack came just weeks after an ISIS-influenced immigrant from Uzbekistan drove a rented truck down a Manhattan bike lane killing eight others and injuring 12 more.

Terrorist Attacks in the U.S. After 9/11

Here’s a look at Islamist-related deadly assaults across the country since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, as compiled by the CATO Institute.

2000
2010
2020
July 4, 2002

An Egyptian man opens fire at the El Al Israel Airlines ticket counter at Los Angeles International Airport, killing two people before he was shot dead by an airline guard. PHOTO: KRISTA NILES/ASSOCIATED PRESS

A gunman kills one woman and wounds five others at the Jewish Federation of Greater Seattle.PHOTO: KEVIN P. CASEY/ASSOCIATED PRESS

A U.S.-born self-described jihad warrior shoots two soldiers, one fatally, outside an Army recruiting station in Arkansas.

Army psychiatrist Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan opens fire at Fort Hood, Texas, killing 13 people and wounding more than 30 others.PHOTO: DONNA MCWILLIAM/ASSOCIATED PRESS

Two crude bombs explode near the finish line of the Boston Marathon, killing three people and injuring more than 175. Bomber, and older brother, Tamerlan Tsarnaev, is killed in a shootout with police; younger brother Dzhokhar is later captured alive.PHOTO: THE BOSTON GLOBE/GETTY IMAGES

College student Brendan Tevlin is shot eight times while waiting at a traffic light in New Jersey. Authorities find links to three earlier killings in Seattle—of 30-year-old Leroy Henderson, shot 10 times and left to die on a road on April 27, and Ahmed Said and Dwone Anderson-Young, killed outside a gay club on June 1—and charge Ali Muhammad Brown with all four.
John Bailey Clarke of North Carolina, 74 years old, is shot three times by a teenage neighbor who had converted online to Islam three months earlier and would plead guilty both to state murder charges and to federal charges of planning a terrorist act.
A 24-year-old Kuwaiti-born man opens fire at two military facilities in Tennessee, killing four Marines and a sailor and injuring three other people before dying from a gunshot wound.

Pakistani immigrant Tashfeen Malik, who had just pledged allegiance to the leader of Islamic State, and her American-born husband open fire on an office party in San Bernardino, Calif., killing 14 people and wounding 21. PHOTO: DAVID BAUMAN/PRESS-ENTERPRISE/ZUMA PRESS

Omar Mateen kills 49 people and wounds 53 more at Orlando gay nightclub Pulse before police fatally shoot him after an hourslong standoff.PHOTO: PHELEN M. EBENHACK/ASSOCIATED PRESS

A Denver transit guard is shot and killed; the man charged with the murder tells the Associated Press he had pledged his allegiance to Islamic State.

Eight people are killed and at least a dozen injured when a truck mows down pedestrians and cyclists on a lower Manhattan bike path.PHOTO: ANDREW KELLY/REUTERS

A Bangladeshi man tried to set off an explosive device he was wearing near New York City’s Port Authority Bus Terminal and Times Square. Three civilians in proximity of the explosion were injured.PHOTO: BRYAN R. SMITH/AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE/GETTY IMAGES

Source: CATO Institute

Mr. Ullah has been living in the U.S. for seven years and had worked as a driver for a car service, officials said. He has been residing in a two-story colonial home on a tree-lined block in Old Mill Basin, Brooklyn, a multiethnic neighborhood. His block was cordoned off Monday morning as groups of New York Police Department officers milled outside the home.

Alan Butrico, who owns the house next door to Mr. Ullah’s home, described the suspect as “unfriendly.” Mr. Butrico, who also owns a hardware store on the corner of the block, said Mr. Ullah never said hello and “would have an attitude” if he was asked to move his car because it was blocking the neighboring driveway.

Mr. Butrico’s cousin, Ross Faillace, who runs a part-time car detailing shop in the back of Mr. Butrico’s property, said of Mr. Ullah: “He was always on edge.”

Both men said that Mr. Ullah was usually clean cut and wore regular clothes, but that lately Mr. Ullah had grown a beard.

Kisslya Joseph of Grenada has been staying with her brother who lives next door to Mr. Ullah. “This has shaken me up and my family because it’s like you never know who your neighbor is,” Ms. Joseph said.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/explosion-reported-at-new-yorks-port-authority-1512997695

# New York City explosion: Live updates

## What you should know

• What happened: A man wearing a homemade device set it off at Port Authority bus terminal near Times Square.
• The suspect: Police named 27-year-old Akayed Ullah. He is of Bangladeshi descent and lives in Brooklyn.
• Injuries: Four people, including the suspect, were injured. None of those injuries are life-threatening, according to FDNY.

## Suspect pledged allegiance to ISIS

From CNN’s Brynn Gingras

While talking with authorities, Port Authority bus terminal explosion suspect Akayed Ullah pledged allegiance to ISIS, according to one law enforcement official with direct knowledge of the investigation. Authorities now have to investigate that claim.

Ullah most recently did electrical work close to Port Authority along with his brother. That brother lives in the same apartment building as Ullah, according to law enforcement.

As part of the normal course of an investigation, authorities want to speak with the brother and other family members.

Another law enforcement source tells CNN that screws were found at the scene.

December 11, 2017 2:54pm EST

The Bangladesh Embassy in Washington DC condemned today’s terror attack in New York City.

Suspect Akayed Ullah, 27, is a lawful permanent resident from Bangladesh, who arrived in the US in 2011.

Here’s the embassy’s statement:

“Government of Bangladesh is committed to its declared policy of ‘Zero Tolerance’ against terrorism, and condemns terrorism and violent extremism in all forms or manifestations anywhere in the world, including Monday morning’s incident in New York City.”

A terrorist is a terrorist irrespective of his or her ethnicity or religion, and must be brought to justice.

## Homeland Security: “We urge the public to remain vigilant”

Secretary of Homeland Security Kirstjen Nielsen, in the job for less than a week, is in touch with New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio and local officials about this morning’s attack, the department said in a statement.

“The Department of Homeland Security is taking appropriate action to protect our people and our country in the wake of today’s attempted terrorist attack in New York City,” the statement read.

“We will continue to assist New York authorities with the response and investigation and we urge the public to remain vigilant and report any suspicious activity.”

# Uranium One

Industry Mining 2005 Toronto, Ontario, Canada Chris Sattler (CEO) Vadim Zhivov (President) Uranium Gold 2,220[1] Rosatom www.uranium1.com

Uranium One is a Canadian uranium mining company with headquarters in Toronto, Ontario. It has operations in AustraliaCanadaKazakhstanSouth Africa and the United States. In January 2013 Rosatom, the Russian state-owned uranium monopoly, through its subsidiary ARMZ Uranium Holding, purchased the company at a value of $1.3 billion.[2] The purchase of the company by Russian interests is, as of October 2017, under investigation by the United States House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. ## History On July 5, 2005, Southern Cross Resources Inc. and Aflease Gold and Uranium Resources Ltd announced that they would be merging under the name SXR Uranium One Inc.[3] In 2007 Uranium One acquired a controlling interest in UrAsia Energy,[4] a Canadian firm with headquarters in Vancouver from Frank Giustra.[5] UrAsia has interests in rich uranium operations in Kazakhstan,[6] and UrAsia Energy’s acquisition of its Kazakhstan uranium interests from Kazatomprom followed a trip to Almaty in 2005 by Giustra and former U.S. President Bill Clinton where they met with Nursultan Nazarbayev, the leader of Kazakhstan. Substantial contributions to the Clinton Foundation by Giustra followed,[5][7] with Clinton, Giustra, and Mexican telecommunications billionaire Carlos Slim in 2007 establishing the Clinton Foundation’s Clinton Giustra Sustainable Growth Initiative to combat poverty in the developing world.[8] In addition to his initial contribution of$100 million Giustra pledged to contribute half of his future earnings from mining to the initiative.[8]

In June 2009, the Russian uranium mining company ARMZ Uranium Holding Co. (ARMZ), a part of Rosatom, acquired 16.6% of shares in Uranium One in exchange for a 50% interest in the Karatau uranium mining project, a joint venture with Kazatomprom.[9] In June 2010, Uranium One acquired 50% and 49% respective interests in southern Kazakhstan-based Akbastau and Zarechnoye uranium mines from ARMZ. In exchange, ARMZ increased its stake in Uranium One to 51%. The acquisition resulted in a 60% annual production increase at Uranium One, from approximately 10 million to 16 million lb.[10][11] The deal was subject to anti-trust and other conditions and was not finalized until the companies received Kazakh regulatory approvals, approval under Canadian investment law, clearance by the US Committee on Foreign Investments, and approvals from both the Toronto and Johannesburg stock exchanges. The deal was finalized by the end of 2010.[11] Uranium One’s extraction rights in the U.S. amounted to 0.2% of the world’s uranium production.[12]Uranium One paid its minority shareholders a dividend of 1.06 US Dollars per share at the end of 2010.[citation needed]

ARMZ took complete control of Uranium One in January 2013 by buying all shares it did not already own.[2] In October 2013, Uranium One Inc. became a private company and a wholly owned indirect subsidiary of Rosatom.[3][13] From 2012 to 2014, an unspecified amount of Uranium was reportedly exported to Canada via a Kentucky-based trucking firm with an existing export license; most of the processed uranium was returned to the U.S., with approximately 25% going to Western Europe and Japan.[14][15]

## Congressional investigation

Since uranium is considered a strategic asset with national security implications, the acquisition of Uranium One by Rosatom was reviewed by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS), a committee of nine government agencies including the United States Department of State, which was then headed by Hillary Clinton.[16][17][18] The voting members of the committee can object to such a foreign transaction, but the final decision then rests with the president.[19]

In April 2015, The New York Times wrote that, during the acquisition, the family foundation of Uranium One’s chairman made $2.35 million in donations to the Clinton Foundation. The donations were legal but not publicly disclosed by the Clinton Foundation, despite an agreement with the White House to disclose all contributors.[20] In addition, a Russian investment bank with ties to the Kremlin and which was promoting Uranium One stock paid Bill Clinton$500,000 for a speech in Moscow shortly after the acquisition was announced.[17][18] Several members of Clinton’s State Department staff and officials from the Obama-era Department of Justice have said that CFIUS reviews are handled by civil servants and that it would be unlikely that Clinton would have had more than nominal involvement in her department’s signing off on the acquisition.[21] According to Snopes, the timing of donations might have been questionable if Hillary Clinton had played a key role in approving the deal, but all evidence suggests that she did not and may in fact have had no role in approving the deal at all.[22]

In October 2017, following a report by John F. Solomon and Alison Spann published in The Hill and citing anonymous sources,[23][24] the United States House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence opened an investigation into the circumstances surrounding the sale of Uranium One.[21]

FactCheck.org reported that there was “no evidence” connecting the Uranium One–Rosatom merger deal with a money laundering and bribery case involving a different Rosatom subsidiary which resulted in the conviction of a Russian individual in 2015, contrary to what is implied in the Solomon-Spann story.[20][25] Glenn Kessler of The Washington Post wrote that the problem with some of the accusations that Republican commentators levied against Clinton is that she “by all accounts, did not participate in any discussions regarding the Uranium One sale.”[26]

In October 2017, President Trump directed the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) to lift a “gag order” it had placed on a former FBI informant involved the investigation. The DOJ released the informant from his nondisclosure agreement on October 25, 2017,[27][28][29]authorizing him to provide the leaders of the Senate Judiciary Committee, House Oversight Committee, and the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence “any information or documents he has concerning alleged corruption or bribery involving transactions in the uranium market” involving Rosatom, its subsidiaries Tenex and Uranium One, and the Clinton Foundation.[30]

During a C-SPAN interview, Hillary Clinton said that any allegations that she was bribed to approve the Uranium One deal were “baloney”.[31]

## References

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium_One

# Journalism for rent’: Inside the secretive firm behind the Trump dossier

December 11 at 12:50 PM
8:20
Fusion GPS founder explains why he started the research firm

Glenn Simpson, founder of Fusion GPS, spoke at the 2016 Double Exposure Investigative Film Festival and Symposium, an event conducted by 100Reporters.

Fusion GPS bills itself as a corporate research firm, but in many ways it operates with the secrecy of a spy agency. No sign marks its headquarters above a coffee shop in Northwest Washington. Its website consists of two sentences and an email address. Its client list is closely held.

The small firm has been under intense public scrutiny for producing the 35-page document known as the Trump dossier. Senior executives summoned to testify before Congress in October invoked their Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, and the firm is resisting a congressional subpoena for bank records that would reveal who has paid for its services.

But hundreds of internal company documents obtained by The Washington Post reveal how Fusion, a firm led by former journalists, has used investigative reporting techniques and media connections to advance the interests of an eclectic range of clients on Wall Street, in Silicon Valley and in the nation’s capital. The firm has played an unseen role in stories that dominated headlines in recent years.

In the years before it produced the dossier, records show, Fusion worked to blunt aggressive reporting on the medical-device company Theranos, which was later found to have problems with its novel blood-testing technology. It was also hired to ward off scrutiny of the nutritional supplement company Herbalife, which ultimately paid $200 million to distributors to settle claims by regulators. In another case, the firm sought to expose what it called “slimy dealings” by a competitor of a San Francisco museum proposed by filmmaker and “Star Wars” director George Lucas. And it dug up information about domestic disputes involving a former mayor of Beverly Hills, Calif., as part of an investigation into a proposed real estate development that the mayor supported. Fusion’s other past research targets, documents show, included tech giants Google and Amazon; 2012 presidential candidates Mitt Romney and Barack Obama; and Republican Sens. Ted Cruz of Texas and Bob Corker of Tennessee. (Amazon chief executive Jeffrey P. Bezos owns The Washington Post.) Fusion assigned code names to the projects — many of them after cities in Texas and Maine — and avoided identifying its clients in internal documents, making it difficult to determine who was paying for the research. The firm also minimized its public footprints by paying outside contractors to collect public records from courthouses, police stations and federal agencies. The Post’s review provides a glimpse at the tactics that have fueled Fusion’s rise in the growing and secretive industry of opposition research and corporate intelligence. The review represents the most comprehensive look at the firm’s work at a time when it is being examined by those who seek to gauge the veracity of the dossier, and it reveals methods that have drawn criticism from the targets of the company’s research, including President Trump. Fusion’s work on the dossier went beyond ordinary opposition research, the kind that might explore a candidate’s past legislative history or embarrassing gaffes — known in the industry as “votes and quotes.” Instead, it paid a former British spy to compile intelligence from unnamed Russian sources. Only a handful of internal documents obtained by The Post relate to the examination of Trump during the 2016 election, a project that was code-named “Bangor” and was financed in part by Hillary Clinton’s campaign. Fusion declined to comment on specific cases or identify clients, but said in a statement that it is “proud of our methodology and the rigor of our research, amply demonstrated by the records cited by The Washington Post. They show what we’ve always stated: Our secret sauce is diligent and exhaustive analysis of public information.” It continued: “The reason we are so effective is that we unearth facts that stand up to scrutiny — presumably why we are still talking about our work detailing the connections between the Trump campaign and Russia more than a year later.” Exposing ‘slimy dealings’ Fusion founder Glenn Simpson, an accomplished former investigative reporter with expertise digging into financial crimes and corruption in Russia and elsewhere, left the Wall Street Journal in 2009 to start a research firm with Susan Schmidt, a two-time Pulitzer Prize winner from The Post. Without Schmidt, Simpson created Fusion GPS the following year, teaming up with former Wall Street Journal editor Peter Fritsch and a former Treasury official. “I call it journalism for rent,” Simpson, 53, said in August of last year at the Double Exposure Investigative Film Festival and Symposium in the District, where he described Fusion’s work on a panel titled, “Investigations With an Agenda.” Fusion has about 10 employees, he said. It has worked on a broad array of cases, including matters related to marijuana dispensaries, health-care workers, a state insurance official and even a Florida homeowner’s association, internal documents show. Fusion has also quietly advocated causes and pet projects dear to wealthy and famous clients. In April 2014, Lucas wanted to build a cultural arts museum on federal land at the foot of the Golden Gate Bridge in San Francisco, a site known as the Presidio. The museum was one of three proposals under consideration by a federal agency called the Presidio Trust. A Fusion client — who is not identified in the documents obtained by The Post — suspected the agency was trying to block the Lucas museum, records show. “We want to understand where this resistance is coming from and why,” Fritsch wrote in an email to his Fusion colleagues. Fritsch added that the “client would like to expose the slimy dealings” of a nonprofit competing with Lucas for the right to build on the land. The investigation was code named “Tyler.” Ron Conway, one of Silicon Valley’s most prolific start-up investors and an outspoken supporter of the Lucas museum, was copied on subsequent emails about the cost of the research. “I don’t have any comment,” Conway said by phone when asked if he had hired Fusion. Over the next nine months, a contractor hired by Fusion blanketed the Presidio Trust and another federal agency with dozens of requests for a range of documents related to board members and a consultant who were judging the proposals — expense reports, ethics forms, employment contracts and other records. In February 2015, with Fusion still waiting for the documents, Conway sent an email to Fritsch with a link to a story in the San Francisco Chronicle. It was about a petition, signed by celebrities such as Hall of Fame quarterback Joe Montana and hip-hop artist MC Hammer, calling on the Presidio Trust to release some of the same records Fusion had requested. “WE ARE OFF AND RUNNING !!” Conway wrote. Fritsch forwarded the email to other Fusion executives and said, “GLORIOUS!!!” It’s not clear whether the effort had the desired effect. The Presidio Trust ultimately rejected all three proposals. A spokeswoman for Lucas told The Post in a statement that Lucas was “unaware of any research undertaken by Fusion GPS.” A Presidio Trust spokesman did not respond to messages from The Post seeking comment. Fusion has at times used hardball tactics, the documents show. Last year, Fusion’s sleuths targeted a controversial proposal for a$1.2 billion hotel and condo project in Beverly Hills, in the heart of one of the nation’s wealthiest areas, records show. The investigation was code named “Gray.”

Fusion’s client is not identified in the records reviewed by The Post, but the documents show that Fusion investigated the activities of the Chinese developer behind the project, Wanda Group, there and in other U.S. cities.

As part of its research, Fusion took aim at a vocal supporter of the Beverly Hills project, then-mayor John Mirisch, records show. Fusion sought police reports from the city related to domestic disputes involving the mayor and his ex-wife that had occurred between 2008 and 2010, records show.

Former Beverly Hills mayor John Mirisch at City Hall in August 2016. (Ricardo DeAratanha/Los Angeles Times)

When city police balked at releasing some of the police reports, a Fusion contractor sued the city. Neither the public-records requests nor the legal complaint mentions Fusion. The suit was filed by former journalist Russell Carollo, who is described in court records as a public records consultant.

Fusion executive Jason Felch, a former investigative reporter with the Los Angeles Times, emailed Carollo on July 21, 2016, with a statement he could give reporters inquiring about the lawsuit. The statement suggested that the mayor might be supporting the Wanda Group project because he owed a favor to a retired police chief who worked for a firm that was lobbying the city on behalf of the hotel, records show. The statement also argued that the public had a right to see the records involving the mayor.

Two weeks later, Carollo was quoted in the local newspaper, the Beverly Hills Courier, under a story headlined: “Pulitzer Prize-winning Journalist Petitions Court For Public Information On Mayor’s Domestic Disputes With Ex-Wife.”

In an interview, Mirisch said he had no idea that Fusion was behind the renewed scrutiny of the years-old domestic disputes. “It was dirty politics and misinformation,” said Mirisch, now a city council member.

Carollo said in an interview that he worked for Fusion and was asked by the firm to file the lawsuit. In a statement, Fusion wrote: “Our policy prohibits any employees or contractors from misrepresenting themselves as journalists or anything else.”

A spokesman for the Beverly Hills hotel project, which remains in planning stages, declined to comment. The retired police chief, Dave Snowden, said in an interview, “Hearing this, that the mayor owed me a favor, is absurd on its face.”

Behind-the-scenes player

Fusion insists that the firm does not engage in public relations work or advertise its media connections to prospective clients. But Fusion executives have interceded with former colleagues in media when their clients came under scrutiny, records and interviews show.

In mid-2015, Fusion was conducting research on two competitors of Theranos, a Silicon Valley start-up that had created buzz in the health-technology industry. Around the same time, the Wall Street Journal was pursuing its own Theranos reporting, which ultimately raised doubts about the accuracy of the company’s revolutionary lab-testing technology. Fusion, working on behalf of Theranos, tried to influence the Journal’s early reporting, according to records and interviews.

Fusion called the case “Ferris.”

A few weeks after Journal reporter John Carreyrou approached Theranos about his investigation into the company, Fritsch contacted him to create a back channel, according to documents and a person familiar with the Journal’s reporting who was not authorized to speak publicly.

Fritsch advised the reporter that his approach with Theranos up to that point had been too blunt and aggressive, and he encouraged him to soften it, the person said. Fritsch also accompanied a Theranos delegation that went to the Journal’s newsroom in June 2015 to discuss the story with Carreyrou and his editor. The delegation, made up mostly of lawyers, was headed by prominent attorney David Boies.

Over the ensuing years, Theranos — once valued at $9 billion — faced regulatory actions, including in 2016 losing its certificate to operate a blood-testing lab in California and its eligibility to receive Medicare and Medicaid payments. The company reached a settlement in April with the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, agreeing not to operate a lab for two years in exchange for the restoration of its certificate. “The Wall Street Journal published its award-winning series on Theranos despite legal threats and strenuous objections from the company and its representatives,” a spokeswoman for the paper said in a statement. A representative of Boies’s law firm, Boies Schiller and Flexner, referred comment to Theranos. A Theranos representative declined to comment. Fusion was also a behind-the-scenes player in a Wall Street battle between billionaire investor William Ackman and the supplement company Herbalife, records show. Ackman had a huge financial stake in Herbalife’s fate. He had taken a short position in the company — meaning if the company failed, his investment would pay off big. Ackman held news conferences calling for regulatory and criminal investigations into Herbalife, alleging that the company’s network of distributors was effectively a pyramid scheme. Herbalife had Fusion working on its side in a project that carried the code name “Rice,” documents show. Fusion launched investigations into Ackman and his hedge fund, Pershing Square Capital Management, according to emails and internal documents. Herbalife’s attorney and outside publicist are copied on some emails that discussed strategy for uncovering public records that would expose whether Ackman was paying nonprofit groups to criticize Herbalife. Fusion’s contractors were looking for information that would spark government investigations into Ackman, documents show. In June 2014, Richard Hynes, a contractor for Fusion, noted that the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission and the New York Attorney General’s Office had previously conducted investigations that touched on Ackman, emails show. “Nothing seems to have come from them,” he wrote. “I wonder what the SEC and NY AG DIDN’T have to make their cases. What else could we provide them this time to effect a different outcome,” he asked. Simpson soon instructed a Fusion contractor to request the SEC’s case file on closed investigations into Ackman or his firm, Pershing Square, documents show. It was Herbalife that fell under investigation. In 2016, it agreed to a$200 million settlement with the Federal Trade Commission over allegations that it deceived buyers and sellers of its products. Herbalife did not respond to a request for comment, and Hynes did not respond to messages.

A ‘no-stones-unturned’ approach

As Fusion has been thrust into the spotlight because of the Trump dossier, it has been forced to reveal details of its operations in court proceedings.

Over objections from Democrats, the Republican leader of the House Intelligence Committee, Rep. Devin Nunes (Calif.), subpoenaed Fusion’s bank records to try to identify the then-mystery client who paid for the dossier. In October, Fusion executives invoked their constitutional right not to answer questions from the committee.

Fusion founder Glenn Simpson, left, arrives for an appearance before a closed House Intelligence Committee hearing in Washington on Nov. 14. (Associated Press)

Simpson had previously sat for a 10-hour closed-door interview with members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, which is also looking into allegations of foreign influence in the 2016 U.S. presidential election. He has also testified before the House committee behind closed doors.

For its investigation into Trump, Fusion was initially hired in the fall of 2015 by the conservative Washington Free Beacon website. The publication is backed by billionaire GOP donor Paul Singer, who was then supporting Sen. Marco Rubio (Fla.) in the GOP primary.

The Post revealed in October that Fusion was paid, via a law firm, by the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee for its work on the dossier.

After Trump won the primary, Fusion approached Marc Elias, a partner at the law firm Perkins Coie who represented the Democratic Party during the 2016 election. Perkins Coie decided the party needed to go deeper than traditional, issue-oriented opposition research groups — a “no-stones-unturned approach,” according to a person familiar with the arrangement who was not authorized to speak publicly.

A spokeswoman for Perkins Coie said Trump “was unvetted by the political process — a businessman with significant real estate holdings both in the United States and around the globe, a history of litigation, financial problems and bankruptcies, and of a decidedly litigious nature,” adding that “the challenge of reviewing public-record information alone on his candidacy necessitated additional research.”

Simpson and Fritsch had worked on stories involving money laundering and Russian government officials while based in Brussels for the Journal. They knew how to pull documents around the world — a skill that had earned them work from top law firms.

“I’ve known Glenn for a long time,” said John W. Moscow, a former prosecutor and now a lawyer with the firm BakerHostetler, which hired Fusion to assist in defending the Russian company Prevezon in a civil money-laundering case. “When we need information from various parts of the world, he can go get it. We hire him on a per-case basis because he’s good.”

Earlier this year, Prevezon settled the suit, brought by the Justice Department, for $5.9 million without admitting guilt. For its work on the dossier, Fusion hired Christopher Steele, a former British intelligence officer who had worked extensively in Russia. In a statement, Fusion said Perkins Coie paid it$1.02 million for work in 2016, and it said Fusion paid Steele’s firm, Orbis Business Intelligence, $168,000. The dossier alleged that the Russian government had collected compromising information on Trump and that the Kremlin was trying to assist his campaign. Officials have said that the FBI has confirmed some of the information in the dossier but the most sensational details have not been verified and may never be. As the dossier circulated among Washington journalists late last year, senior U.S. officials viewed the matter as serious enough to brief then-President-elect Donald Trump on its existence. And when BuzzFeed published the document online in early January, the dossier — particularly its more salacious claims — gripped the nation. In recent weeks, Trump and congressional Republicans have seized on the Clinton campaign’s role in the dossier to try to discredit suggestions that his campaign colluded with Russia. At the August conference last year, Simpson said his firm upholds strict standards developed in his years as a journalist. “You can’t just say what you know. You have to say how you know it. And you have to be able to prove it,” he said. “That imposes a sort of discipline to the investigative process that people in other fields don’t really absorb.” He was candid about the money involved. Explaining why he left journalism, he joked: “We don’t use the word ‘sold out.’ We use the word ‘cashed in.’ ” Matt Zapotosky and Ellen Nakashima contributed to this report. https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/journalism-for-rent-inside-the-secretive-firm-behind-the-trump-dossier/2017/12/11/8d5428d4-bd89-11e7-af84-d3e2ee4b2af1_story.html?utm_term=.dcc6a59b2320 ## Story 3: People of Alabama Will Elect Roy Moore on Tuesday To Fill Senate Seat Vacated By Now Attorney General Jeff Sessions — Moore Is Right On The Issues — Videos # MUST WATCH: Judge Roy Moore gives Most AMAZING Speech on eve of the Alabama Election # Alabama vote and why Roy Moore is confident # Why Alabama Supports Roy Moore | AJ+ # Why These Alabama Voters Are Sticking By Roy Moore (HBO) # Roy Moore accuser admits, she did doctor yearbook signature #TFNOriginal 12/8/17 # Yes, Roy Moore will win. | Alabama Senate Special Election 2017 Prediction # Live Stream: Roy Moore’s Closeup, Lionel Destroys Mainstreamers and Stuff # Ben Shapiro – Roy Moore Accuser FAKED Year Book Entry # Ben Shapiro – The True Story Behind The Roy Moore Allegations # A Roy Moore Win Is a Victory for the Revolution, the Deplorables and Defeat for the Sockpuppet Media # Roy Moore, Doug Jones and the issues: A voter’s guide to the Alabama Senate election Things seem to be going Roy Moore’s way. President Trump endorsed him. The Republican National Committee is back to supporting him. And Moore, who has been accused of sexual contact with women when they were underaged, has led by an average of 3 percentage points in polls taken within 21 days of the Dec. 12 […] Wochit Alabama voters will go to the polls Tuesday for the third time in four months to decide who will be the state’s junior U.S. senator. Where the primaries — and later the GOP runoff — featured candidates who largely agreed on policy, there are notable contrasts between Democratic Senate nominee Doug Jones and Republican Senate nominee Roy Moore. The two candidates have sharply different views on health care, the environment, and social issues. Those differences has been overshadowed as Moore has dealt with accusations — most stemming from his time as a prosecutor in Etowah County in the late 1970s and early 1980s — that he pursued relationships with teenaged girls, and engaged in conduct ranging from unwanted attention to assault. Moore denies the allegations. The candidates have tried — to varying degrees — to discuss other issues as well. Moore in his public appearances has gone back to the religiously conservative, anti-LGBT message that has defined his political career. “The transgenders don’t have rights,” Moore said at a news conference in Montgomery Nov. 8, which was as of Friday his last public appearance in the county before the election. “They’ve never been denominated as having rights by the U.S. Supreme Court.” Jones, meanwhile, has emphasized jobs and health care, in particular his support of Medicaid, Medicare and renewal of the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP). In recent days, Jones has amped up his attacks on Moore over the accusations. “I believe women are every bit as capable as men, that they deserve to be elected to public office, and I damn sure believe and have done my part to ensure that men who hurt little girls should go to jail, not to the U.S. Senate,” Jones said in remarks in Birmingham on Tuesday. Whatever else can be said about Tuesday election, it is certain that the candidates present contrasting visions for the state of Alabama. ### The candidates Doug Jones Age: 63 Residence: Birmingham Party: Democratic Family: Married; three children, two grandchildren Profession: Attorney Education: B.A., University of Alabama, 1975; J.D., Cumberland School of Law, 1979 Offices held/offices sought: U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Alabama, 1997-2001 Finances: Despite a slow start over the summertime, Jones has pulled in more than$10 million since the start of October.

Themes: Jones has pitched a mainstream Democratic platform with an emphasis on job creation and access to health care. He has also discussed his time as U.S. attorney, in particular his prosecution of two men responsible for the bombing of the 16th Street Baptist Church in Birmingham in 1963.

Roy Moore

Age: 70

Residence: Gallant

Party: Republican

Profession: Attorney

Family: Married; four children; five grandchildren

Offices held/Offices sought: Alabama chief justice, 2013-2016 and 2001-03; Republican candidate for governor, 2010 and 2006; Etowah County circuit judge, 1992-2001; Democratic candidate for Etowah County district attorney, 1986; Democratic candidate for Etowah County circuit judge, 1982.

Education: B.S., United States Military Academy, 1969; J.D., University of Alabama School of Law, 1977

Finances: Moore historically lags opponents in fundraising (even in races he’s won), and the Senate race has followed that pattern. While Moore started the general election campaign ahead of Jones overall in fundraising, he raised just $1.7 million between October and the end of November. Themes: Although Moore has tied himself with President Donald Trump and spent time denouncing his accusers, his Senate campaign is otherwise much like previous campaigns he’s waged in the past 17 years, with strong appeals to religious conservativism and denunciations of abortion and LGBT rights. ### Issues Health care Jones: Says health care is a right and supports the Affordable Care Act — which covered 178,000 Alabamians last winter — but says he wants to “bring both sides together” in Washington to address issues like premiums and out-of-pocket costs. Has called for renewal of the Children’s Health Insurance Program, which covers about 150,000 children in Alabama. Says he will support Medicare and Medicaid, which combined cover nearly 2 million Alabamians, in their current forms. Has been open to a public option for Medicare. Moore: Has called for the repeal of the Affordable Care Act and the sale of health insurance policies across state lines and tax credits to businesses for employee health care coverage, while broadly calling for government to get out of health care. Has not committed to renewal of the CHIP program. Economy and taxes Jones: Says he supports simplification of business and corporate taxes to create jobs, but says the tax bill before Congress “can’t be a giveaway to the richest Americans paid for by working families.” Supports a “living wage” for workers, streamlining regulations and extending the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act to ensure equal pay for men and women. Moore: Says he “supports any kind of tax cut” and would replace the current progressive income tax system — where the wealthy pay a higher share of their income in taxes — with a 15 percent flat tax or a 23 percent national sales tax, offset in part by monthly stipends. Calls for cuts to the budget deficit. Immigration Jones: Says he supports border security and “maintaining the integrity of our borders against all threats” with “the most advanced technology possible.” Has supported efforts to find status for those covered by the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, also known as Dreamers, who were brought to the United States by their parents when they were children. Moore: Says he would support a border wall if needed to address undocumented immigration, but has also called for the deployment of the U.S. military to the Mexican border. Has called DACA a “permanent evil” created by former Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano. Trade Jones: Says trade agreements should create jobs in Alabama and prevent barriers for Alabama companies for selling their goods, such as high tariffs. Moore: Has expressed support for renegotiating the North American Free Trade and Central American Free Trade agreements (NAFTA and CAFTA) and says he supports some tariffs to address “unbalanced” trade. Abortion Jones: Supports abortion rights and current laws governing abortion. The Moore campaign has accused Jones of supporting “late-term abortion;” Jones has said he only supports abortion after 20 weeks in cases of medical emergency. Says the way to reduce unwanted pregnancies is “education and access to health care and contraception.” Moore: Supports abortion restrictions and has called himself “the exact opposite” of Jones on the issue. The campaign did not respond to questions as to whether Moore supports exceptions to an abortion ban, such as rape, incest or the life of the mother. LGBT rights Jones: Supports same-sex marriage and LGBT rights. Moore: Strongly opposes same-sex marriage and LGBT rights, and in a 2002 judicial opinion called homosexuality “abhorrent, immoral, detestable, a crime against nature and a violation of the law of Nature.” Guns Jones: Has called himself “a Second Amendment guy” and highlighted his love of hunting. Says gun laws as they stand should be enforced, but supports efforts to improve background checks, both to allow law-abiding citizens to obtain firearms and prevent criminals from getting them. Moore: Says he believes in the Second Amendment and pulled out a gun at a rally before the Sept. 26 GOP runoff. In a summer Facebook posting, Moore said he would ensure gun rights “are never, ever infringed upon.” Environment & energy Jones: Says he “believes in science and that climate change is occurring.” Supports investments in renewable energy and conservation, particularly for their economic impact and says those working in the coal industry need a “safety net” of job retraining and health care benefits. Moore: Has declined to answer questions about climate change. Website suggests an energy policy consisting of coal and oil drilling, along with “development” of nuclear, solar and wind energy. http://www.montgomeryadvertiser.com/story/news/politics/southunionstreet/2017/12/10/roy-moore-doug-jones-and-issues-voters-guide-alabama-senate-election/934965001/ # The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts Portfolio #### Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or DownloadShows 1010-1011 #### Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or DownloadShows 1001-1009 #### Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or DownloadShows 993-1000 #### Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or DownloadShows 984-992 #### Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or DownloadShows 977-983 #### Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or DownloadShows 970-976 #### Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or DownloadShows 963-969 #### Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or DownloadShows 955-962 #### Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or DownloadShows 946-954 #### Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or DownloadShows 938-945 #### Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or DownloadShows 926-937 #### Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or DownloadShows 916-925 #### Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or DownloadShows 906-915 #### Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or DownloadShows 889-896 #### Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or DownloadShows 884-888 #### Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or DownloadShows 878-883 #### Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or DownloadShows 870-877 #### Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or DownloadShows 864-869 #### Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or DownloadShows 857-863 #### Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or DownloadShows 850-856 #### Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or DownloadShows 845-849 #### Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or DownloadShows 840-844 #### Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or DownloadShows 833-839 #### Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or DownloadShows 827-832 #### Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or DownloadShows 821-826 #### Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or DownloadShows 815-820 #### Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or DownloadShows 806-814 #### Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or DownloadShows 800-805 #### Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or DownloadShows 793-799 #### Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or DownloadShows 785-792 #### Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or DownloadShows 777-784 #### Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or DownloadShows 769-776 #### Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or DownloadShows 759-768 #### Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or DownloadShows 751-758 #### Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or DownloadShows 745-750 #### Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or DownloadShows 738-744 #### Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or DownloadShows 732-737 #### Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or DownloadShows 727-731 #### Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or DownloadShows 720-726 #### Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or DownloadShows 713-719 #### Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or DownloadShows 705-712 #### Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or DownloadShows 695-704 #### Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or DownloadShows 685-694 #### Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or DownloadShows 675-684 #### Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 668-674 #### Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 660-667 #### Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 651-659 #### Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 644-650 #### Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 637-643 #### Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 629-636 #### Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 617-628 #### Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 608-616 #### Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 599-607 #### Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 590-598 #### Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 585- 589 #### Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 575-584 #### Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 565-574 #### Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 556-564 #### Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 546-555 #### Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 538-545 #### Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 532-537 #### Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 526-531 #### Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 519-525 #### Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 510-518 #### Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 500-509 #### Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 490-499 #### Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 480-489 #### Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 473-479 #### Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 464-472 #### Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 455-463 #### Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 447-454 #### Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 439-446 #### Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 431-438 #### Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 422-430 #### Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 414-421 #### Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 408-413 #### Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 400-407 #### Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 391-399 #### Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 383-390 #### Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 376-382 #### Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 369-375 #### Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 360-368 #### Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 354-359 #### Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 346-353 #### Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 338-345 #### Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 328-337 #### Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 319-327 #### Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 307-318 #### Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 296-306 #### Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 287-295 #### Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 277-286 #### Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 264-276 #### Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 250-263 #### Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 236-249 #### Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 222-235 #### Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 211-221 #### Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 202-210 #### Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 194-201 #### Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 184-193 #### Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 174-183 #### Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 165-173 #### Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 158-164 #### Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 151-157 #### Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 143-150 #### Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 135-142 #### Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 131-134 #### Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 124-130 #### Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 121-123 #### Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 118-120 #### Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 113 -117 #### Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 112 #### Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 108-111 #### Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 106-108 #### Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 104-105 #### Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 101-103 #### Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 98-100 #### Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 94-97 #### Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 93 #### Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 92 #### Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 91 #### Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 88-90 #### Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 84-87 #### Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 79-83 #### Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 74-78 #### Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 71-73 #### Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 68-70 #### Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 65-67 #### Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 62-64 #### Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 58-61 #### Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 55-57 #### Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 52-54 #### Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 49-51 #### Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 45-48 #### Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 41-44 #### Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 38-40 #### Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 34-37 #### Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 30-33 #### Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 27-29 #### Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 17-26 #### Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 16-22 #### Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 10-15 #### Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1-9 Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far ) ## The Pronk Pops Show 993, November 1, 2017, Story 1: Update of Radical Islamic Terrorist Jihadist Attack in New York City — President Trump “Send Him To Gitmo” as Enemy Combatant and Get Rid of Chain Migration and Diversity Lottery Immigration Program and Replace With Merit Based System of Immigration — Videos — Breaking — Story 2: Trump Expected To Name Jerome Powell As Next Federal Reserve Chairman Replacing Chair Janet Yellen — A Dove or Continuation of Interventionist Easy Monetary Policy — Better Choice Was John Taylor — Taylor For Fed Chair and Powell for Vice Chair — Videos # The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts #### Pronk Pops Show 993, November 1, 2017 #### Pronk Pops Show 992, October 31, 2017 #### Pronk Pops Show 991, October 30, 2017 #### Pronk Pops Show 990, October 26, 2017 #### Pronk Pops Show 989, October 25, 2017 #### Pronk Pops Show 988, October 20, 2017 #### Pronk Pops Show 987, October 19, 2017 #### Pronk Pops Show 986, October 18, 2017 #### Pronk Pops Show 985, October 17, 2017 #### Pronk Pops Show 984, October 16, 2017 #### Pronk Pops Show 983, October 13, 2017 #### Pronk Pops Show 982, October 12, 2017 #### Pronk Pops Show 981, October 11, 2017 #### Pronk Pops Show 980, October 10, 2017 #### Pronk Pops Show 979, October 9, 2017 #### Pronk Pops Show 978, October 5, 2017 #### Pronk Pops Show 977, October 4, 2017 #### Pronk Pops Show 976, October 2, 2017 #### Pronk Pops Show 975, September 29, 2017 #### Pronk Pops Show 974, September 28, 2017 #### Pronk Pops Show 973, September 27, 2017 #### Pronk Pops Show 972, September 26, 2017 #### Pronk Pops Show 971, September 25, 2017 #### Pronk Pops Show 970, September 22, 2017 #### Pronk Pops Show 969, September 21, 2017 #### Pronk Pops Show 968, September 20, 2017 #### Pronk Pops Show 967, September 19, 2017 #### Pronk Pops Show 966, September 18, 2017 #### Pronk Pops Show 965, September 15, 2017 #### Pronk Pops Show 964, September 14, 2017 #### Pronk Pops Show 963, September 13, 2017 #### Pronk Pops Show 962, September 12, 2017 #### Pronk Pops Show 961, September 11, 2017 #### Pronk Pops Show 960, September 8, 2017 #### Pronk Pops Show 959, September 7, 2017 #### Pronk Pops Show 958, September 6, 2017 #### Pronk Pops Show 957, September 5, 2017 #### Pronk Pops Show 956, August 31, 2017 #### Pronk Pops Show 955, August 30, 2017 #### Pronk Pops Show 954, August 29, 2017 #### Pronk Pops Show 953, August 28, 2017 #### Pronk Pops Show 952, August 25, 2017 #### Pronk Pops Show 951, August 24, 2017 #### Pronk Pops Show 950, August 23, 2017 #### Pronk Pops Show 949, August 22, 2017 #### Pronk Pops Show 948, August 21, 2017 #### Pronk Pops Show 947, August 16, 2017 #### Pronk Pops Show 946, August 15, 2017 #### Pronk Pops Show 945, August 14, 2017 #### Pronk Pops Show 944, August 10, 2017 #### Pronk Pops Show 943, August 9, 2017 #### Pronk Pops Show 942, August 8, 2017 #### Pronk Pops Show 941, August 7, 2017 #### Pronk Pops Show 940, August 3, 2017 #### Pronk Pops Show 939, August 2, 2017 #### Pronk Pops Show 938, August 1, 2017 ## Story 1: Update of Radical Islamic Terrorist Jihadist Attack in New York City — President Trump “Send Him To Gitmo” and Get Rid of Chain Migration and Diversity Lottery Immigration and Replace With Merit Base System — Videos — # Passport to terrorism – Jason Chaffetz on the NY terrorist attack – 11/1/17 – Fox & Friends # New York truck attack: Trump calls for end of green card lottery – BBC News # President Donald Trump: Starting The Process Of Terminating The Diversity Lottery Program | CNBC # Schumer to Trump: Stop dividing, politicizing # What we know about the suspect in deadly NYC attack # Suspect In NYC Terror Attack That Killed 8 Victims Shot, In Custody # President Trump’s EXPLOSIVE Response to NY Truck Attack: “Send Him to Gitmo!” 11/1/17 # The Diversity VISA Program Should Be GUTTED!!” Hannity and Mark Levin Speak TRUTH on Immigration # “The Diversity Lottery is COMPLETELY INSANE!” Ann Coulter REACTS to NYC # Robert Mueller’s Witch Hunt – Mark Levin – Hannity # “Allahu Akbar!” #NYC #Terror and #Uzbek Sayfullo Saipov — Lionel on “Real News With David Knight” # We Should Televise Sayfullo Saipov Explaining Why He Killed 8 to Show America What Evil Looks Like # Uzbek terrorist appears shackled in court in a wheelchair after it emerges he had thousands of ISIS videos on his phone, asked to fly terror flag in his hospital room and chose Halloween because he thought more people would be on the streets • Sayfullo Saipov, 29, was charged Wednesday with providing material support to a terrorist group and committing violence and destruction of motor vehicles • He did not enter a plea and judge ordered him to be held in federal jail • Uzbek national will appear again in federal court on November 15 • Saipov killed eight and injured 12 by mowing down people with a rented pick-up truck on the Hudson River bike path in lower Manhattan Tuesday afternoon • According to a criminal complaint, Saipov admitted that he was inspired by ISIS • Saipov asked federal agents to hang an ISIS flag in his hospital room and said he ‘felt good about what he had done’ • Investigators found thousands of ISIS-related materials on Saipov’s computer • About 90 ISIS-related videos were also found on Saipov’s cell phone • He was interviewed by federal agents in 2015 as a possible associate of two suspected terrorists, but a case file was never opened on him New details are emerging about Sayfullo Saipov (left and right) who mowed down more than a dozen innocent people on a New York City bike path on Tuesday The Muslim immigrant from Uzbekistan accused of carrying out Tuesday’s terror attack in Manhattan entered court Wednesday evening in a wheelchair, handcuffed and with his feet shackled, to face terrorism charges filed against him by the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York. Sayfullo Saipov, 29, wore a gray shirt and was surrounded by five guards while in his wheelchair inside a New York federal courthouse after he was charged with providing material support to a terrorist group and committing violence and destruction of motor vehicles. His lawyers said Wednesday they were not seeking bail and a judge ordered him to be held in federal jail. Saipov did not enter a plea to terrorism charges and a judge set his next court date for November 15. Authorities say the Uzbek national watched ISIS videos on his cellphone and picked Halloween for the attack on a bike lane in lower Manhattan because he knew more people would be out on the streets. Prosecutors said in court papers that Saipov asked to display the ISIS flag in his hospital room where he was recovering from being shot in the stomach by police ending the attack. Saipov ‘stated that he felt good about what he had done,’ according to court papers. The 29-year-old left behind knives and a note, handwritten in Arabic, that included Islamic religious references and said ‘it will endure’ — a phrase that commonly refers to ISIS, FBI agent Amber Tyree said in court papers. The Muslim immigrant from Uzbekistan (above in court sketches) accused of carrying on Tuesday’s terror attack in Manhattan entered court Wednesday evening in a wheelchair, handcuffed and with his feet shackled, to face terrorism charges filed against him by the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York Questioned in his hospital bed, Saipov said he had been inspired by ISIS videos and began plotting an attack about a year ago, deciding to use a truck about two months ago, Tyree said. Saipov even rented a truck on October 22 to practice making turns, Tyree said. John Miller, deputy New York police commissioner for intelligence, said Saipov ‘appears to have followed, almost exactly to a T, the instructions that ISIS has put out.’ In the past few years, the Islamic State has exhorted followers online to use vehicles, knives or other close-at-hand means of killing people in their home countries. England, France and Germany have all seen deadly vehicle attacks since mid-2016. A November 2016 issue of the group’s online magazine detailed features that an attack truck or van should have, suggested renting such a vehicle and recommended targeting crowded streets and outdoor gatherings, according to the SITE Intelligence Group, a militant-monitoring agency. Saipov told authorities, according to the compliant, he chose Halloween for the attack because he thought there would be more civilians nearby. Carlos Batista, a neighbor of Saipov’s in Paterson, New Jersey, said he had seen the suspect and two friends using the same model of rented truck several times in the past three weeks. Overnight, FBI investigators raided Saipov’s Paterson, New Jersey apartment, where he lives with his wife and three kids, the youngest of whom is three months old An FBI investigator carries a bag of evidence away from Saipov’s home on Wednesday Trump tweeted Wednesday night that he spoke with the president of Argentina about the five victims who died in the attack on Tuesday He also tweeted that the US ‘will be immediately implementing much tougher Extreme Vetting Procedures’ New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo told CNN on Wednesday that Saipov ‘radicalized domestically’ after moving to America seven years ago, where he had worked as a commercial truck driver and Uber driver. Reports say that Saipov attended a ‘suspicious’ New Jersey mosque. Saipov married in 2013 and has since fathered three children – the youngest of whom is three months old. Overnight, FBI agents raided the couple’s Paterson, New Jersey home. On October 28, Saipov was spotted on the George Washington Bridge, the crossing at the far northern tip of the island between New Jersey and New York. That same day, his EZ-pass recorded him driving through the Holland Tunnel (which also links New Jersey and New York) twice. The Holland Tunnel is located in lower Manhattan, near where Saipov started his rampage on Tuesday. Prosecutors released the criminal complaint (above) against Saipov on Wednesday afternoon which describes the charges he’s been hit with for Tuesday’s deadly attack Saipov was charged with providing material support to a terrorist group and committing violence and destruction of motor vehicles The documents also provide details into the background on ISIS as a foreign terrorist organization The suspect seemingly lived a quiet life prior to moving to the U.S. He had spent most of his life living in a single apartment with his parents and three younger sisters in Tashkent, the capital of Uzbekistan, Radio Free Europe (RFE) reports. Two neighbors back in Tashkent told RFE that the Saipov family were ‘very secular’ and ‘ordinary Uzbeks who don’t stand out in any particular respect’. ‘His parents are far from religion,’ one of them said, ‘They don’t even pray.’ Saipov’s father, 52-year-old Habibullo, and mother, 50-year-old Muqaddas, run a small clothing stand in their local bazaar, and are relatively well off in their country, owning their own car and home. The Uzbek national also said that he was inspired to carry out the attack by ISIS videos he had watched on his cell phone, according to the complaint Authorities say one of the cellphones found in Saipov’s possession contained 90 videos of ISIS-related propaganda At the age of 22, Saipov moved alone to the U.S. after winning a greencard through the Diversity Visa Lottery. But a police source in Tashkent told RFE that Saipov lived for a time in Osh, Kyrgyzstan – a city that saw violent ethnic clashes in 1990 and 2010 – before immigrating to the U.S. (DailyMail.com learned that Saipov has close links to Osh, according to Ruslan Leviev, head of the Conflict Intelligence Team, an anti-Kremlin social media monitoring group. He has social media links to friends in the city, also the home of Akbarjon Djalilov, who bombed the St Petersburg metro last year.) When he first moved to the U.S., acquaintances said that he did not appear to be a ‘religious person’. Several years later though, they say he became ‘aggressive’ and started expressing ‘very radical views,’ according to sources who spoke to RFE. Since immigrating, Saipov has lived in multiple states – with addresses in Ohio, Florida and New Jersey. There’s some confusion about where Saipov lived when, and for how long, since it appears he moved around frequently. It’s possible that Saipov, working as a trucker, split his time between the three states. Saipov’s mosque in Paterson, New Jersey has been under NYPD surveillance since 2005 (pictured above on Wednesday) While NBC News reported that Saipov got his commercial driver’s license in New Jersey in 2010, and later had it transferred to Florida, sources in Ohio say he lived there right after immigrating. Dilnoza Abdusamatova, 24, told the Washington Post that Saipov stayed with her family in Cincinnati for his first two weeks in the country because their fathers were friends. ‘He always used to work,’ Dilnoza said told the Cincinnati Enquirer. ‘He wouldn’t go to parties or anything. He only used to come home and rest and leave and go back to work.’ She said that he cut off contact with them about a year later, when he got married and moved to Florida to work as a truck driver. Records show that Saipov married fellow-Uzbek Nozima Odilova in Ohio in 2013. She was 19 years old at the time. ### TIMELINE OF THE MASSACRE 2:06pm Saipov rents a truck from the Home Depot in Passaic, New Jersey. 2:43pm Cameras on the George Washington Bridge show Saipov crossing into New York City. 3:04pm Cameras outside the Holland Tunnel show Saipov entering the bike lane at West Street and Houston Street at a high rate of speed. Saipov targets bicyclists and pedestrians in the south-bound lane. Eventually, crashing into a school bus at Chambers Street, where gets out and continues to terrorize bystanders. 3:08pm Police receive more than a dozen 911 calls of a truck driver targeting bystanders in the bike lane, crashing into a school bus and getting out waiving a gun. Two officers who were nearby at Stuyvesant High school for an unrelated call respond to the scene and notice Saipov walking around waiving a gun. Officer Bryan Nash, a 28-year-old who has been on the force for five years, shoots Saipov in the abdomen, bringing the rampage to an end. While Dilnoza says that Saipov started his trucking business in Florida, recrods show he actually started both of them in Ohio – going so far as to use her family’s home address for registration. In 2011, he started Sayf Motors in Hamilton County, Ohio. Two years later, he started another company in Cuyahoga Falls, Ohio – Bright Auto LLC. Bright Auto LLC is an active carrier registered with the U.S. Department of Transportation. Records show that the trucking company has one truck and one driver. The company said it could not confirm if the suspect had rented the vehicle, but they are cooperating with police. One fellow Uzbek driver said that Saipov ran into issues working as a truck driver and was a mean-spirited person. Mirrakhmat Muminov, 38, of Stow, Ohio, portrayed Saipov as an argumentative young man whose work was falling apart and who ‘was not happy with his life.’ Muminov said Saipov lost his insurance on his truck after his rates shot up because of a few traffic tickets, and companies stopped hiring him. Muminov said he heard from Saipov’s friends that Saipov’s truck engine blew up a few months ago in New Jersey. He also said Saipov would get into arguments with his friends and family, tangling over even small things, such as going to a picnic with the Uzbek community. ‘He had the habit of disagreeing with everybody,’ Muminov said. Kobiljon Matkarov, 37, said that he met Saipov in Florida about five years ago and they bonded over their shared Uzbek heritage. ‘He is very good guy, he is very friendly… he is like little brother… he look at me like big brother,’ he told The New York Post. Matkarov says Saipov even invited him to his wedding in Ohio, but he couldn’t attend. Matkarov visited New York City recently and said that Saipov drove his family to JFK airport as they were leaving. Saipov was very friendly, he said, and good with children: ‘My kids like him too, he is always playing with them. He is playing all the time,’ he said – but added that when one of the children asked to take a photo with him, Saipov refused. ‘He no like that. He said no,’ Matkarov said. Matkarov said he was shocked by the claim that his friend had murdered and injured more than a dozen people, and that he didn’t know of any terrorist connections he may have had. Matkarov said he knew his friend had been working for Uber in New Jersey, a fact that the ride-sharing company has confirmed. Uber said in a statement on Tuesday night: ‘We are horrified by this senseless of violence. Our hearts are with the victims and their families. We have reached out to law enforcement to provide our full assistance.’ The company said that he had passed a background check by the company and that they are now ‘aggressively’ reviewing his history with them, although they had not yet found any ‘concerning safety reports.’ The company added that he has been banned from the app. Saipov appears to have lived in both Fort Myers and Tampa, Florida. And though he had been living in New Jersey when he was arrested on Tuesday, he had a Florida driver’s license on him. Neighbors at Saipov’s Tampa apartment complex told the Daily Beast that Saipov lived in a modest apartment with his wife, kids and an older woman who appeared to be his mother or mother in law. They said he was often on the road for two weeks at a time because of his job. They said the family also left every summer. The last time they left, the family told neighbors that they were moving to New Jersey because Saipov’s job had been transferred. Neighbor Melissa Matthews says the women of the household wore head scarves and were cold to her. ‘Most people you say hello to and they say hello back, but they didn’t,’ Matthews said. But neighbor Kyong Eagan had fonder memories of Saipov. She says that the terror suspect treated her like royalty, bringing her food, large cases of water and orange juice and household appliances his family no longer needed. ‘He always treated me like I was his mother,’ Eagan said. ‘He was kind of a nice neighbor. A real nice neighbor to have.’ Eagan said Saipov, who she described as soft-spoken, brought her home-cooked meals because he wanted her to learn about his culture. ‘I just can’t believe it at all. He was just so genuine. I’m just so shocked,’ she said. Other Tampa neighbors said he should ‘fry’ for his killing spree. Gloria Bailey, 71, learnt she was living in the alleged mass killer’s former apartment when the FBI knocked on her door Tuesday and a helicopter circled overhead. ‘If he did what they say he did, they need to fry him. If he took innocent lives they need to burn him. Locking him up isn’t good enough,’ she told DailyMail.com. The grandmother of seven moved into the rented$48,000 condo 11 months ago and found the two-bedroom property clean and tidy when she arrived.

‘I’ve never seen the guy, I don’t know what was going on. I just know that he was living in my apartment previously because the management told me,’ she added.

‘All I do is go to work and go to church. But now I feel nervous, I feel scared. I know America is the land of opportunity but they need to do more screening than they do.

‘People are killing each other all over the world and they can all come here.’

Residents living at the Heritage At Tampa housing complex said they barely remembered Saipov who is believed to have lived there in 2015 when his driver’s license was registered to the address.

A statement issued by the property’s management company confirmed he was a former tenant but directed all questions to law enforcement.

Tatiana Colarte, 19, who used to walk her dog past Saipov’s former ground apartment every morning, said: ‘It’s so scary.

‘As soon as I saw a picture I recognized it was him. I can’t believe the man who carried out that act lived so close to me.’

Police probed an apartment complex address in Fort Myers, Florida on Tuesday night where terror suspect Saipov lived from 2010 to 2011.

Uniformed officers from the Fort Myers Police Department as well as unidentified plain clothed agents were seen entering a second floor condo and speaking to the current occupants, a couple with young children.

A police car was stationed outside the rented two-bed, $50,000 property on the Gulfstream Isles housing complex but law enforcement had left by Wednesday morning. Neighbors told DailyMail.com they had no idea who Saipov was before they saw his face on the news and couldn’t remember him living there. This is the rented Home Depot truck that plowed through cyclists and runners on the bicycle path. It only stopped when Saipov allegedly deliberately struck a schoolbus at an intersection The side of the bus crumpled in, collapsing onto the chairs – and children – inside. Two children and two adults were hospitalized after the crash. One of the children was in critical condition Shattered bicycles are seen here on the West Side Highway bike path where eight people were killed and at least 12 more injured. At least five of those who were killed had rented Citibikes before they were hit A vehicle is surrounded by a police perimeter in the parking lot of a Home Depot store in Passaic, New Jersey where authorities believe Saipov rented the truck used in the attack ### TERRORIST’S ACTIVITIES SINCE MOVING TO THE U.S. March 2010: Immigrates to the U.S. from Uzbekistan. Stays with the Abdusamatov family in a Cincinnati suburb for his first two weeks. April 2011: Gets a traffic violation in Hartford County, Maryland and lists an address in Fort Myers, Florida May 2011: Starts Sayf Motors Inc., registering the business to the Abdumastov’s home address April 12, 2013: Marries Nozima Odilova in Ohio August 2012: Gets a ticket in Pennsylvania and lists a Paterson, New Jersey address Sometime in 2012: Meets friend Kobiljon Matkarov in Florida, is allegedly living there at the time. Matkarov says Saipov lived in Fort Myers until 2014 August 2013: Starts Bright Auto LLC in Cuyahoga Falls, Ohio March 2015: Gets ticket in Pennsylvania and gives officers a Paterson, New Jersey address April 2016: Gets a traffic violation in Missouri and gives cops an address for Tampa, Florida Late 2016 – Early 2017: Saipov’s mother visits him for about two months Around April 2017: Starts working for Uber in NJ September 2017: Saipov tells a friend that he’s thinking of moving back to Uzbekistan In August 2012, he was pulled over in Palmyra, Pennsylvania and gave cops a Paterson, New Jersey address. He gave cops a Paterson address again in March 2015, when he was pulled over in Mount Holly Springs Borough, Pennsylvania. The manager of Saipov’s local grocery store in Paterson, Farm Boy Super Fresh Supermarket on Getty Avenue, had a poor opinion of the man. She claims that Saipov was an ‘erratic’ customer who berated the cashiers, the New York Post reported. ‘Every time he came here he was always erratic or arguing with the cashiers,’ the manager, who did not want to provide her name, said. ‘He would get angry very fast…. he would break the cans, dumb things,’ she said, adding that he was known for his rude behavior. ‘I feel like he was prejudiced to the cashiers – whether they were covered or not in a hijab – he would belittle them,’ she told The Post. ‘He was talking good English, proper, but he would call the cashiers dumb, uneducated – how they didn’t know how to scan the items.’ She also said that Saipov argued often about the price of Canada Dry Ginger Ale. ‘Soda was the problem. He would come here and buy soda,’ she said. ‘He would give us a hard time on the 12-pack Canada Dry – if it was one price he would want his own price. It was always the soda, always a problem with the 12-pack of cans. Always a problem.’ One neighbor, 64-year-old Slavo Petrov, says he often sees Saipov going to mosque with his wife and kids, but he ‘never says good morning and never says good afternoon’. Investigators work around the wreckage of the Home Depot pickup truck a day after the massacre Crime scene covered the scene, located in a usually bustling area of Manhattan A large portion of the West Side Highway remained shut down on Wednesday so that officials could continue to investigate It has since been revealed that Saipov’s mosque was also under surveillance by the NYPD. According to NorthJersey.com, the NYPD has been studying the Omar Mosque in Paterson, near Saipov’s home, as a possible location for ‘budding terrorist conspiracies’. It doesn’t appear that criminal activity has been linked to the mosque but the report says it ‘is believed to have been the subject of federal investigations’. ABC News also reports that Saipov was interviewed by federal agents two years ago about his alleged ties to two suspected terrorists. Law enforcement sources told ABC that Saipov was interviewed as a potential ‘point of contact’ for two different men who were entered into the Counter-terrorism and Criminal Exploitation Unit’s list when they came to the U.S. from ‘threat countries’. One of those men has since vanished and federal authorities are actively searching for him. The other is described as a ‘suspected terrorist’. Saipov was never the center of any investigation, and his interviews with federal authorities did not raise suspicions enough for the FBI to start a case file on him. Saipov also has a minor criminal record for traffic offenses in Missouri, Pennsylvania and Maryland. He was pulled over in Maryland in 2011 and gave cops an address in Fort Myers, Florida. In 2012 and 2015, he was pulled over twice in Pennsylvania and each time gave an address in Paterson, New Jersey His most recent traffic violation appears to have happened in April 2016, when he got a traffic violation in Missouri and said he was living in Tampa. Each time he was cited for a traffic violation, Saipov pleaded guilty and paid a fine. New York City Police Commissioner James O’Neill (center) stands with New York Governor Andrew Cuomo and (left) and Mayor Bill de Blasio during a news conference about the attack on Wednesday ### VICTIMS OF THE BIKE PATH TERROR ATTACK Darren Drake, 32 Drake from New Milford, New Jersey, was taking a 15-minute afternoon break from his job at Moody’s Analytics nearby when he was struck. His father said he had recently undergone weight loss surgery and cycled his bike to stay fit. Drake’s grieving parents told The New York Post he that he had recently purchased a Citibike membership in a bid to lose weight. They said he was ‘so smart’ and suggested that he may have been listening to an audio book when he was hit which they said they hoped meant he did not see the truck coming. Nicholas Cleves, 23 Cleves is a resident of New York. He was identified along with Drake by the NYPD on Wednesday afternoon. Cleves, 23, is a high school graduate and recently completed a degree in computer science from Skidmore College in Saratoga Springs. He lived in Greenwich Street, near to where the truck began its rampage on the West Side Highway at Houston Street. Shopkeepers in the area said Cleves was ‘warm’ and a ‘good person’. It is not clear if he was cycling or walking when he was hit. Belgian tourist Ann-Laure Decadt, 31, Mother-of-two Decadt was in New York with her two sisters and mother and was hit from behind as she traveled south on the bike path. She died in New York Presbyterian Hospital after being rushed from the scene. Her husband said she was a ‘wonderful’ mother to two young boys aged two and three-months. He was notified that she had died in a phone call from hospital staff on Tuesday evening. The woman’s mother and two sisters were not injured. Five Argentinian friends visiting New York Five men from a group of nine Argentinians who were in New York celebrating their 30th school reunion were killed. The men were all on Citibikes and were struck cycling south along the path. They are Hernan Diego Mendoza-Espino, 47, Alegandro Damian Mendoza-Espino, 47, Herman Ferruchi, 47, Diego Enrique, 47 and Ariel Erlis, 48. Five members of this group of Argentinian friends were also killed. They are Hernán Diego Mendoza (far left), Alejandro Damián Pagnucco (second from left), Ariel Erlij (third from left), Diego Enrique Angelini (second from right) and Hernán Ferruchi (third from right). A sixth friend, Martin Ludovico Marro (not pictured), was injured About an hour before the attack on Tuesday, Saipov rented a pick-up truck from a Home Depot in Passaic, New Jersey. He then drove the truck into the city over the George Washington Bridge, at the very northern tip of Manhattan, and made his way all the way down to lower Manhattan. He crossed onto the Hudson River bike path at Houston Street, and then sped down the path nearly a mile – killing eight and injuring 12 while allegedly shouting ‘Allahu Akbar’. He then waved a paintball gun in one hand and a pellet gun in the other, and was shot in the abdomen by a police officer. Overnight FBI investigators searched through Saipov’s apartment in Paterson, and the white minivan he left behind at the Home Depot parking lot. Investigators are also collecting video and pictures from the scene of the attack. In addition to interviewing Saipov, investigators are also talking to his wife and are planning to track down his other contacts. A source told RFE that authorities in Uzbekistan interviewed Saipov’s mother, father and 17-year-old sister on Wednesday. A makeshift memorial stands on a bike path in lower Manhattan on Wednesday where the terror attack was carrier out a day before Five of the dead were part of a group from Argentina who were celebrating the 30-year anniversary of their high school graduation. Another victim was from Belgium and the other two were American. Two of the injured were staff members on a bus transporting children that Saipov slammed into at the end of his rampage. Six people died at the scene and two more died at the hospital. Of the 12 others that were hospitalized, three have since been released. Four of the nine still hospitalized were in critical condition but are now stable. The rest are in serious condition. The injuries ranged from a bilateral amputation to serious head and neck injuries, back trauma and trauma to the arms and legs. Both New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio and New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo spoke at the Wednesday press conference. ‘This was an attack on the United States of America, an attack on New York City, an attack on our people,’ de Blasio said. ‘It was the definition of terror – an effort to take away people’s hopes and spirit and make them change. ‘And what New York has showed already is that we will not be changed. We will now be cowed, we will not be thrown off by anything,’ he added. During the question and answer portion of the press conference, Cuomo criticized President Trump’s ‘politicization’ of the tragedy. The aftermath took a political turn Wednesday when Trump said Saipov came to the U.S. under a visa lottery program — ‘a Chuck Schumer beauty,’ Trump called it in a reference to the Senate’s top Democrat. Cuomo said it was not the time for such remarks – which he called ‘not helpful’ and ‘not factual’. ### WHAT IS THE DIVERSITY VISA LOTTERY PROGRAM? President Donald Trump pitted part of the blame for the latest New York City terror attack on one of the state’s senators, Chuck Schumer. The terror suspect, 29-year-old Sayfullo Saipov, came to the U.S. in March 2010 from Uzbekistan, after winning a greencard through the Diversity Visa Lottery Program. The program was enacted into law under the first President Bush in 1990, as part of a bi-partisan effort on immigration reform. The original bill was authored by Sen. Ted Kennedy, and Schumer was a co-sponsor of the bill. The lottery is meant to benefit immigrants from under-represented ethnic groups, and was originally designed with the Irish in mind. As the years have gone by, the winners of the lottery have gotten more diverse, just like the name of the program. In 2015, nearly half the winners were African. President Donald Trump complained Wednesday morning on Twitter that the terrorist who killed eight people Tuesday in New York entered the U.S. through a program that uses a lottery to award immigration visas The program, which awards visas mainly to people from countries that are under-represented in the U.S., was originally introduced by Sen. Chuck Schumer when he was a member of the House of Representatives Trump has argued for a ‘merit-based’ immigration system since at least March Applicants who enter must have the equivalent of a high school degree and two years of work experience. As many as 15 million prospective immigrants enter the lottery every year, but only 55,000 visas are awarded – 5.5 per cent of the about 1million who move to the U.S. every year. The program is different from more traditional means of immigration. Many people secure visas to move to the U.S. because they have desireable degrees, are going to study at a school or work for a specific employer. And of course there are those who secure visas through marriage. In his comments on Wednesday, Trump blamed Schumer for the policy and said he wants all U.S. immigration to be merit-based (i.e. prospective immigrants must prove that they have something to offer). ‘The terrorist came into our country through what is called the ‘Diversity Visa Lottery Program,’ a Chuck Schumer beauty. I want merit based [immigration]. ‘We are fighting hard for Merit Based immigration, no more Democrat Lottery Systems. We must get MUCH tougher (and smarter),’ the president tweeted. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer originally introduced the diversity visa program to an immigration bill in 1990 when he served in the House of Representatives Chuck Schumer fired back on Twitter, accusing President Trump of being eager to ‘politicize a tragedy’ Later in the day, he held a press conference and promised to eradicate the program. ‘I am today starting the process of terminating the diversity lottery program,’ Trump told reporters before a midday Cabinet meeting. ‘It sounds nice. It’s not nice. It’s not good.’ While Schumer did indeed co-sponsor the bill nearly 30 years ago, he actually tried to end it in 2013 as part of the bi-partisan Gang of Eight immigration reform bill. Schumer was part of the group of four Republicans and four Democrats that tried to pass the new immigration bill. It never passed, but it if did it would have created a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants already in the country, increased border security by adding up to 40,000 border patrol agents, instituted talent-based immigration program, increased visas and greencards for STEM students and placed restrictions on the oft-abused H-1B visa. The other senators who authored the bill included the Democrats Michael Bennett, Dick Durbin and Robert Menendez and the Republicans Jeff Flake, Lindsay Graham, John McCain and Marco Rubio. Schumer said Wednesday in a statement that he has ‘always believed and continue to believe that immigration is good for America.’ ‘President Trump, instead of politicizing and dividing America, which he always seems to do at times of national tragedy, should be focusing on the real solution – anti-terrorism funding – which he proposed cutting in his most recent budget,’ Schumer said. ‘I’m calling on the President to immediately rescind his proposed cuts to this vital anti-terrorism funding.’ Below are the countries that saw the largest amount of Diversity Lottery winners in 2015. Saipov’s homeland of Uzbekistan makes it into the top 10. THE TOP TEN (FY2015): • Cameroon: 5,000 • Liberia: 5,000 • Iran: 4,992 • Egypt: 4,988 • Ethiopia: 4,988 • Democratic Republic of the Congo: 4,943 • Ukraine: 4,679 • Uzbekistan: 4,368 • Russia: 4,103 • Kenya: 3,534 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5038871/Who-Uzbek-driver-mowed-innocents-NYC.html#ixzz4xIdXDecn # ‘Send him to Gitmo’: Trump is considering banishing ‘animal’ New York terror suspect to military prison as WH brands him an enemy combatant • President Donald Trump told reporters on Wednesday that he might send terror suspect Sayfullo Saipov to the Guantanamo Bay military prison • ‘Send him to Gitmo,’ Trump said at the White House; ‘I would certainly consider that’ • White House press secretary Sarah Sanders said later that Trump ‘wasn’t necessarily advocating for’ putting Saipov in Guantanamo • Trump called Saipov ‘an animal’ a day after he allegedly moved down eight people in New York City with a rented truck, then yelled ‘Allahu Akbar’ • The president said he’s begun winding down the ‘diversity’ visa lottery program, but he doesn’t have the legal authority to wipe it off the books • Sen. John McCain says Saipov committed an ‘act of war’ and should be treated as an ‘enemy combatant,’ interrogated and denied Miranda rights President Donald Trump said Wednesday that he would consider sending Sayfullo Saipov, the Uzbek national who plowed a rented truck through a bike lane full of cyclists and pedestrians on Tuesday, to the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. ‘I would certainly consider that, yes. I would certainly consider that. Send him to Gitmo,’ Trump said. White House press secretary Sarah Sanders told reporters hours later during a briefing that ‘the point he was making is that he supports – or would support that, but he wasn’t necessarily advocating for it.’ Trump ‘certainly would support it if he felt like that was the best move,’ she added cryptically. Separately, Senate Armed Services Committee chairman John McCain, a Republican who has tangled with the president on taxes and Obamacare, said Saipov should be considered an ‘enemy combatant’ and denied Miranda rights by police. Sayfullo Saipov, the Uzbek national who plowed a rented truck through a bike lane full of cyclists and pedestrians on Tuesday, was admitted to the U.S. in 2010 under the State Department’s Diversity Immigrant Visa Program The president also declared that he is already moving to terminate the State Department’s diversity-oriented visa lottery program, which granted Saipov entry into the United States in 2010. ‘I am today starting the process of terminating the diversity lottery program. I’m going to ask Congress to immediately initiate or get rid of this program,’ he said. Trump called Saipov ‘an animal’ during remarks before a cabinet meeting at the White House. ‘He came in through the diversity program as you know, and we’re going to stop it,’ the president vowed. On Capitol Hill, McCain said in a statement that Americans should recognize terror attacks as ‘acts of war.’ ‘As such, the New York terror suspect should be held and interrogated – thoroughly, responsibly, and humanely– as an enemy combatant consistent with the Law of Armed Conflict,’ McCain added. ‘He should not be read Miranda Rights, as enemy combatants are not entitled to them. As soon as possible, the administration should notify Congress how it plans to proceed with the interrogation and trial of this suspect.’ Arizona Republican Sen. John McCain said terror attacks are ‘acts of war’ and perpetrators should be considered ‘enemy combatants’ South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham advocates for holding suspected terrorists without giving them Miranda rights, including the right to have an attorney South Carolina Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham also suggested grilling terror attackers without giving them the right to remain silent or an attorney. Graham recommended on the Fox News Channel that authorities ‘Hold them for a long period of time, get to know them, interrogate them about what they know, where they got trained – if any training.’ ‘And we’ll find out pretty soon more about this guy if you don’t read him his Miranda rights,’ he continued, ‘because that stops the interrogation.’ The president does not have the authority to unilaterally end the lottery program that was implemented by Congress in 1990. He has endorsed Senate legislation that would replace it with a merit-based program, but it is not guaranteed to pass even if it comes to the floor for a vote. The White House could order the State Department to reduce the maximum number of lottery visas awarded annually from 50,000 to as few as zero. ‘The “diversity lottery” – sounds nice. It’s not nice. It’s not good,’ Trump told reporters. ‘We want a merit-based program’ for immigration, Trump said, ‘where people come into our country based on merit.’ ‘And we do not want chain migration, where ultimately someone like him will be allowed to bring in many, many members of his family,’ Trump said. America’s heavily fortified Guantanamo Bay prison camp, situated on leased land in Cuba, has been the home of suspected jihadi terrorists for decades Trump suggested that Americans were ‘suckers’ for supporting a system that allowed lax oversight of people allowed to fast-track their visa applications on the basis of a randomly drawn number. ‘We want people that are going to keep our country safe. We don’t want lotteries, where the wrong people are in the lotteries,’ he said. ‘And guess what? Who are the suckers that get those people.’ The president also complained about ‘being stopped by Democrats’ as he attempts to ‘get rid of this lottery program.’ ‘We’re going to stop that,’ the president insisted. Saipov was seen on video running through a lower Manhattan street as he yelled ‘Allahu akbar,’ just after mowing down eight people with a rented pickup truck. NYPD: Uzbek man ‘planned attack for number of weeks’ Trump has vowed to reverse the previous administration’s course on closing Guantanamo, which was one of former president Barack Obama’s earliest campaign promises – and one he never fulfilled. Obama largely emptied out ‘Gitmo,’ as the terror-detention hellhole is known, reducing its population from 242 to just 41. The prison camp has been the site of infamous torture techniques including waterboarding – which the president supported during his White House campaign. ‘Terrorists are constantly seeking to strike our nation and it will require the unflinching devotion to our law enforcement, homeland security and intelligence professionals to keep America safe,’ Trump said Wednesday ‘We have to get much tougher and we have to get much smarter,’ he added. ‘And we have to get much less politically correct. We’re so politically correct that we’re afraid to do anything.’ ### THE ‘DIVERSITY VISA’ LOTTERY In the government fiscal year ending September 2015, the most recent year for which statistics are available, the State Department received about 9.4 million applications for Diversity Immigrant Visas. The applications included petitions for another 5 million spouses and children who would be admitted to the U.S. with lottery winners, for a total of 14.4 million potential visa recipients. About 125,000 of them were lottery-selected, giving them the right to apply for immigrant visas – a number that the State Department cut off at 50,000 on a first-come, first-served basis. Uzbekistan was the 8th-highest represented nation among the lottery winners that year. THE TOP TEN: • Cameroon: 5,000 • Liberia: 5,000 • Iran: 4,992 • Egypt: 4,988 • Ethiopia: 4,988 • Democratic Republic of the Congo: 4,943 • Ukraine: 4,679 • Uzbekistan: 4,368 • Russia: 4,103 • Kenya: 3,534 # White House says Saipov should be considered ‘enemy combatant’ – The Washington Times – Wednesday, November 1, 2017 The White House said Wednesday that it considers the New York terrorist attacker to be an enemy combatant, a status which would make him subject to military justice. “I believe we would consider this person to be an enemy combatant, yes,” said White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders. “I think the actions that he took certainly justify that.” Terrorist suspect Sayfullo Saipov, a native of Uzbekistan, is accused of killing eight people and injuring 11 others by mowing them down with a rented truck on a bike path in lower Manhattan Tuesday. President Trump said he would consider sending Mr. Saipov to the Guantanamo Bay terrorist detention center. Mrs. Sanders said the president “wasn’t necessarily advocating for it.” Asked about the president’s call for quicker and tougher justice in terrorism prosecutions, Mrs. Sanders said Mr. Trump “was simply expressing his frustration” with the lengthy legal process that often comes with such cases. President Trump said he would consider sending Mr. Saipov to the Guantanamo Bay terrorist detention center. Mrs. Sanders said the president “wasn’t necessarily advocating for it.” Asked about the president’s call for quicker and tougher justice in terrorism prosecutions, Mrs. Sanders said Mr. Trump “was simply expressing his frustration” with the lengthy legal process that often comes with such cases. Justice Department spokesman Wyn Hornbuckle declined to comment Wednesday on whether there have been any discussions with the White House on sending Mr. Saipov to Guantanamo rather than filing criminal charges in a civilian court. The question about whether Mr. Saipov could be subject to military justice or tried in the civilian courts comes amid developments in several high-profile terrorism trials in the federal courts. A federal jury last month convicted Ahmad Khan Rahimi, a 29-year-old New Jersey man, of planting two pressure-cooker bombs in New York City in 2016, one of which exploded and injured 30 people. The federal trial of Ahmed Abu Khattala, the alleged mastermind behind the deadly 2012 attack on an American compound in Benghazi, Libya, got underway last month. Federal prosecutors are still presenting evidence in that case at the federal courthouse in D.C. According to Justice Department documents from 2015, federal civilian criminal courts had convicted 620 people on terrorism-related charges since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. The number of convictions has continued to climb. A Fordham University School of Law analysis found that from March 2014 through August 2017, 135 people had been charged with and 77 people had been convicted of crimes linked to the Islamic State. Since 2001, military commissions have resulted in eight convictions, with four overturned. The five people accused of conspiring in the Sept. 11 attacks have yet to go to trial after more than a decade in custody at Guantanamo. Anthony D. Romero, executor director of the American Civil Liberties Union, said sending Mr. Saipov to Guantanamo or treating him as an enemy combatant would “violate due process and the rule of law.” “The FBI and our federal court system are more than capable of dealing with terrorism cases, and Guantánamo was shown long ago to be an epic failure,” Mr. Romero said. https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/nov/1/wh-saipov-should-be-considered-enemy-combatant/ # Trump orders Homeland Security to step up ‘extreme vetting’ in wake of NYC terror attack President Trump announced that he has ordered Homeland Security to step up “extreme vetting” in the wake of the New York City attack that left eight people dead and 11 injured. “I have just ordered Homeland Security to step up our already Extreme Vetting Program. Being politically correct is fine, but not for this!” he wrote. I have just ordered Homeland Security to step up our already Extreme Vetting Program. Being politically correct is fine, but not for this! Trump’s statement comes after a man described as a “lone wolf” deliberately drove a rented truck into a West Side bike path in lower Manhattan, in the first terror attack in New York City since 9/11, and just blocks from the World Trade Center. Trump’s extreme-vetting policy on immigrants entails more stringent investigative measures intended to identify those who may sympathize with extremists or pose a national security risk to the United States. On Wednesday, Trump called for “Merit Based immigration,” saying on Twitter that the driver in Tuesday’s attack “came into our country through what is called the ‘Diversity Visa Lottery Program,’ a Chuck Schumer beauty.” Officials said the attacker is an immigrant from Uzbekistan who came to the U.S. legally in 2010. They haven’t said whether he came in through the Diversity Immigrant Visa Program, which covers immigrants from countries with low rates of immigration to the U.S. Trump tweeted, “We are fighting hard for Merit Based immigration, no more Democrat Lottery Systems. We must get MUCH tougher (and smarter).” On Tuesday, the driver brandished two fake guns when he exited the truck after the multi-block rampage which left a trail of mangled bodies and twisted bikes. He yelled “Allahu Akbar,” which is the Arabic phrase for “God is great.” A high-ranking police source told PIX11 News the suspect has been identified as 29-year-old Sayfullo Saipov. He’s a resident of Tampa, Fla., who arrived in the United States in 2010 from Uzbekistan, sources told PIX11 News. Under an executive order Trump signed earlier this year, the United States had temporarily halted admissions for refugees from all countries, with some exceptions. The end-date written into the order came and went last week with no new order from Trump to extend it, according to a State Department official, who wasn’t authorized to comment by name and requested anonymity. Refugees seeking entry to the U.S. will face what officials described as more stringent and thorough examination of their backgrounds, in line with Trump’s “extreme vetting” policy for immigrants. The Homeland Security Department, the State Department and other U.S. agencies have been reviewing the screening process during the temporary ban. Trump orders Homeland Security to step up ‘extreme vetting’ in wake of NYC terror attack # Diversity Immigrant Visa The five-year (2006–2010) legal immigration rate per country’s total 2005 population, defined as all those who received legal permanent residence in all categories, including regular immigrantsrefugees and asylees, diversity lottery winners, NACARA/HRIFA beneficiaries, and others. The Diversity Immigrant Visa program, also known as the green card lottery, is a United States congressionally mandated lottery program for receiving a United States Permanent Resident Card. The Immigration Act of 1990 established the current and permanent Diversity Visa (DV) program. The lottery is administered by the Department of State and conducted under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) as amended by the Immigration Act of 1990. The lottery makes available 50,000 permanent resident visas annually and aims to diversify the immigrant population in the United States, by selecting applicants from countries with low rates of immigration in the five years prior. Attempts have been made to end the program since 2005. In 2017 it received widespread attention after eight people were killed in a terrorist attack by a recipient of a Diversity Immigrant Visa. ## Requirements To enter the lottery, applicants must have been born in an eligible country. If selected, to qualify for the immigrant visa, they must have completed at least a high school education or at least two years of work experience in an occupation which requires at least two other years of training or experience.[1] They must also satisfy general immigration requirements, such as means of support, no criminal background, and good health. Eligibility is determined by the applicant’s country of birth. In some cases the applicant may use a parent’s or spouse’s country of birth instead. The country of residence or nationality is irrelevant.[1] ## Distribution and lottery process Regions and eligible countries for the Diversity Visa lottery The visas are distributed among six regions: AfricaAsiaEurope (TurkeyCyprus and all countries in the former Soviet Union are allocated to Europe, even though some of them are geographically entirely in Asia), Latin America (MexicoCentral America, the Caribbean and South America), North America (consisting only of Canada and the Bahamas), and Oceania.[1][2] Dependent territories are treated as part of their respective sovereign countries, and disputed territories are allocated as recognized by the United States. For example, Bermuda is treated as part of the United Kingdom under Europe, the Gaza Strip is considered part of Egypt under Africa, and the West Bank is considered part of Jordan under Asia. However, there are some exceptions: Northern IrelandHong Kong and Taiwan are treated as separate countries, and Macau is considered part of Portugal under Europe (even after its sovereignty returned to China in 1999).[1] Each region that sent more than one sixth of the total number of immigrants to the United States in the previous five years is considered a “high-admission region” (currently Latin America and Asia), and each region that sent less than one sixth is a “low-admission region” (currently North America, Europe, Africa and Oceania). The proportion of Diversity Visas given to the low-admission group is set as the proportion of recent immigrants from the high-admission group (currently about 80%),[3] and vice versa. Among regions of the same group, the Diversity Visas are allocated proportionally to their population, excluding ineligible countries (those that sent more than 50,000 immigrants in the previous five years).[2] There is a limitation that no single country may receive more than 7% of the total Diversity Visas (3,500).[1] Although only 50,000 Diversity Visas are available each year, the lottery selects about 100,000 applicants. The reason for the larger selection is to ensure that all 50,000 Diversity Visas are eventually given each year, since some applicants may not satisfy general immigration requirements or may decide not to continue the process. As a result, some lottery winners might not obtain a visa.[4] It is also possible that some visas remain available even after all initially selected applicants are reviewed. In this case, additional applicants are selected later. For this reason, applicants who were not initially selected in the lottery should keep checking their status online periodically, until the end of the respective fiscal year.[5] ## History ### Legislative and Administrative Starting in 1986, the United States established several temporary immigrant visa programs outside of the usual immigration preferences (family members or by employment). The first program was NP-5, run from 1987 to 1989, where a limited number of visas was issued on a first-come, first-served basis. The second program was OP-1, run through a lottery from 1989 to 1991 and available for natives of countries with low levels of recent immigration to the United States. The third program, AA-1, ran from 1992 to 1994 and was available for natives from a select group of countries that had been “adversely affected” by earlier immigration laws. Intentionally and in practice, people from Ireland and Northern Ireland benefited disproportionally from these programs. They were also known as the DonnellyBerman and Morrison visas, respectively, after the congressmen who sponsored each one.[6][7][8][9] The Immigration Act of 1990 established the current and permanent Diversity Visa (DV) program, where 55,000 immigrant visas (later reduced to 50,000) are available in an annual lottery. The lottery aims to diversify the immigrant population in the United States, by selecting applicants mostly from countries with low rates of immigration to the United States in the previous five years.[9] Starting in fiscal year 1999, 5,000 of the visas from the DV program are reserved for use by the NACARA program, so the number of immigrant visas available in the lottery is reduced to 50,000.[10] The first DV lottery, for fiscal year 1995, was named DV-1.[11] For fiscal years 1996 to 1999, the name was in the format DV-YY, where YY was the last two digits of the year.[12][13][14][15] The lotteries since fiscal year 2000 have been named in the format DV-YYYY, with the full year number.[16] The year in the name refers to the fiscal year when the immigrant visas will be given, which starts in October of the previous calendar year, and the entry period for the lottery occurs almost a year earlier. Therefore, there is a two-year difference between the lottery name and its entry period. For example, for DV-2017 (fiscal year starting in October 2016), the entry period was in 2015.[1] Initially, the DV lottery was administered entirely by mail, and only winners were notified. The entry form moved to an online system starting in DV-2005, but still only winners were notified, by mail.[6] Starting in DV-2010, all applicants are able to verify online whether they were selected.[17] Notification of winners also by mail continued until DV-2011, but since DV-2012 it is done exclusively online.[18] ### Efforts to Repeal In December 2005, the United States House of Representatives voted 273–148 to add an amendment to the border enforcement bill H.R. 4437 abolishing the DV. Opponents of the lottery said it was susceptible to fraud and was a way for terrorists to enter the country. The Senate never passed the bill. In March 2007, Congressman Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) introduced H.R. 1430, which would eliminate the Diversity Visa program. In June 2007, the U.S. House passed H.R. 2764 to eliminate funding for the program, and the Senate did likewise in September.[19] However, the final version of this bill with amendments, signed into law on December 26, 2007, did not include the removal of funds for the program. Several attempts have been made over the last several years to eliminate the lottery. Although H.R. 2764 was an appropriation bill and could only cut funds for the lottery during one fiscal year, this was the first time that both the House and the Senate passed a bill to halt the Diversity Visa program. H.R. 2764 Rep. Goodlatte reintroduced his Security and Fairness Enhancement for America Act (formerly H.R. 1430, now H.R. 2305) on May 7, 2009. The bill would have amended the Immigration and Nationality Act to eliminate the diversity immigrant program completely, but did not pass. Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-TX) introduced the Save America Comprehensive Immigration Act of 2009 (H.R. 264) on January 7, 2009. The bill would have doubled the number of Diversity Visas available to 110,000 yearly. The bill did not pass.[20] If it had passed, the Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act of 2013 would have abolished the program in fiscal year 2015. A comprehensive analysis of DV lottery issues was prepared in 2011 by Congressional Research Service.[21] ### Terrorism In 2002 Hesham Mohamed Hadayet, an Egyptian immigrant who maintained residency in United States through his wife’s Diversity Visa[22]killed two people and injured four others at Los Angeles International Airport.[23][24][25] In 2017 Sayfullo Habibullaevich Saipov, who had immigrated from Uzbekistan on a Diversity Visa, killed eight and injured eleven when he drove his truck down a bike path in Lower Manhattan.[26][27] ## Ineligible countries Those born in any territory that has sent more than 50,000 immigrants to the United States in the previous five years are not eligible to receive a Diversity Visa. For DV-2019, natives of the following nations are ineligible: BangladeshBrazilCanadaChina (mainland-born), ColombiaDominican RepublicEl SalvadorHaitiIndiaJamaicaMexicoNigeriaPakistanPeruPhilippinesSouth KoreaUnited Kingdom (except Northern Ireland) and its dependent territories, and Vietnam.[28] ### Exemptions The term 50,000 “immigrants” refers only to people who immigrated via the family-sponsored, employment, or immediate relatives of U.S. citizen categories, and does not include other categories such as refugees, asylum seekers, NACARA beneficiaries, or previous diversity immigrants. It is for this reason that CubaIraqMyanmarIranEthiopiaNepalGuatemalaEcuador and Egypt are not on the ineligible list as of 2016 despite sending over 50,000 immigrants in the previous five years.[29]Northern Ireland has a special exemption, with natives able to enter the lottery despite the rest of the United Kingdom being ineligible. ### Changes The first program was in fiscal year 1995, and the following 13 countries were ineligible from the start: Canada, China (mainland), Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Haiti, India, Jamaica, Mexico, Philippines, South Korea, Taiwan, United Kingdom (except Northern Ireland) and its dependent territories, and Vietnam. Since then, Bangladesh, Brazil, Colombia, Nigeria, Pakistan and Peru have been added to the ineligible list and are currently on it, Taiwan has been removed from it, and Ecuador, Guatemala, Poland and Russia have been on it at times, reflecting the changing levels of immigration from these countries. Of the eight most populous countries in the world, all are ineligible except Indonesia. Of the next 11 most populous countries, eight are eligible, of which six are among the heaviest users of the lottery (RussiaEthiopiaEgyptDemocratic Republic of the CongoIran and Turkey); each of these countries was assigned close to the maximum possible ~4,500 openings for DV-2019 (along with AlbaniaNepalUkraine and Uzbekistan).[4] Historical eligibility for the Diversity Immmigrant Visa lottery Country Fiscal year 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Bangladesh Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No No No No No Brazil Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No No No No No No No No No No Canada No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No China No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No Colombia Yes No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No Dominican Republic No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No Ecuador Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No No No No No No No Yes Yes El Salvador No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No Guatemala Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Haiti No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No India No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No Jamaica No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No Mexico No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No Nigeria Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No No No Pakistan Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No Peru Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No No No No No No No No No No Philippines No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No Poland Yes Yes Yes No No No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No No No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Russia Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes South Korea No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No Taiwan No No No No No No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes United Kingdom No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No Vietnam No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No Others Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes ## Statistics Applicants (including derivatives)[30][31][32][4] Region DV-2007 DV-2008 DV-2009 DV-2010 DV-2011 DV-2012 DV-2013 DV-2014 DV-2015 DV-2016 DV-2017 DV-2018 Africa 3,901,066 4,150,726 4,372,522 5,105,274 5,812,139 6,304,186 6,783,699 7,500,487 6,586,260 N/A N/A N/A Asia 2,732,805 3,506,073 6,401,172 6,175,452 7,870,896 10,102,185 1,863,169 2,384,168 2,720,578 N/A N/A N/A Europe 1,910,410 2,120,916 2,174,715 2,154,567 2,593,074 3,022,506 3,512,521 4,434,266 4,731,913 N/A N/A N/A Latin America 489,144 243,694 192,447 126,168 193,932 200,712 377,386 266,272 315,667 N/A N/A N/A North America 1,968 2,647 3,193 2,624 3,793 3,717 3,356 3,657 3,585 N/A N/A N/A Oceania 34,834 40,260 40,964 33,743 37,674 38,962 37,224 45,120 39,884 N/A N/A N/A Total 9,070,227 10,064,316 13,185,013 13,597,828 16,511,508 19,672,268 12,577,355 14,633,970 14,397,887 17,573,350 19,344,586 23,088,613 Selected applicants (including derivatives)[30][31][32] Region DV-2007 DV-2008 DV-2009 DV-2010 DV-2011 DV-2012 DV-2013 DV-2014 DV-2015 DV-2016 DV-2017 DV-2018 Africa 43,998 52,823 53,979 54,003 51,004 50,000 52,080 61,942 58,000 45,034 38,500 49,392 Asia 11,929 14,142 14,002 15,001 14,999 15,002 16,045 23,270 20,002 15,002 13,499 15,997 Europe 21,939 26,150 27,921 29,803 30,999 31,001 33,088 46,589 40,000 27,011 28,500 41,706 Latin America 3,097 1,845 1,893 1,982 2,001 2,002 2,206 4,620 3,999 3,000 1,951 4,995 North America 12 17 12 18 18 15 16 23 14 16 10 15 Oceania 1,398 1,713 1,801 1,803 1,600 2,001 2,193 4,215 3,499 1,500 1,450 3,863 Total 82,373 96,690 99,608 102,610 100,621 100,021 105,628 140,659 125,514 91,563 83,910 115,968 Proportion of applicants who were selected Region DV-2007 DV-2008 DV-2009 DV-2010 DV-2011 DV-2012 DV-2013 DV-2014 DV-2015 DV-2016 DV-2017 DV-2018 Africa 1.13% 1.27% 1.23% 1.06% 0.88% 0.79% 0.77% 0.83% 0.88% N/A N/A N/A Asia 0.44% 0.40% 0.22% 0.24% 0.19% 0.15% 0.86% 0.98% 0.74% N/A N/A N/A Europe 1.15% 1.23% 1.28% 1.38% 1.20% 1.03% 0.94% 1.05% 0.85% N/A N/A N/A Latin America 0.63% 0.76% 0.98% 1.57% 1.03% 1.00% 0.58% 1.74% 1.27% N/A N/A N/A North America 0.61% 0.64% 0.38% 0.69% 0.47% 0.40% 0.48% 0.63% 0.39% N/A N/A N/A Oceania 4.01% 4.25% 4.40% 5.34% 4.25% 5.14% 5.89% 9.34% 8.77% N/A N/A N/A Total 0.91% 0.96% 0.76% 0.75% 0.61% 0.51% 0.84% 0.96% 0.87% 0.52% 0.43% 0.50% ## Criticism Critics have called for ending the program citing fraud and the random nature of the lottery.[33][34] Others have noted the risk of terrorism, citing a 2002 terror attack by an Egyptian immigrant who maintained residency in United States through his wife’s Diversity Visa.[22][35][36] Following a 2017 terrorist attack by another Diversity Visa recipient, President Donald Trump, who had earlier called for a return to a “merit-based” immigration system,[37][38] called for an end to the program.[39][40] ## Fraud There is no charge to enter the Diversity Visa lottery, and the only way to do so is by completing and sending the electronic form available at the U.S. Department of State’s website during the registration period. However, there are numerous companies and websites that charge a fee in order to complete the form for the applicant. The Department of State and the Federal Trade Commission have warned that some of these businesses falsely claim to increase someone’s chances of winning the lottery, or that they are affiliated with the U.S. government.[41] There have also been numerous cases of fraudulent emails and letters which falsely claim to have been sent by the Department of State and that the recipient has been granted a Permanent Resident Card. These messages prompt the recipients to transfer a “visa processing fee” as a prerequisite for obtaining a “guaranteed” green card. The messages are sometimes sent to people who never participated in the lottery and can look trustworthy as they contain the recipient’s exact name and contact details and what appears to be a legal notice. The Department of State has issued a warning against the scammers. It notes that any email claiming the recipient to be a winner of the lottery is fake because the Department has never notified and will not notify winners by email. The Department has urged recipients of such messages to notify the Internet Crime Complaint Center about the scam.[42] The office of inspector general identified multiple problems with DV lottery in several countries, including Ukraine, Ghana, Albania in embassy inspection reports.[43][44][45] According to testimony from Stephen A. Edson before the House Judiciary Committee, “in Bangladesh, for example, one agent is reported to have enrolled an entire phone book so that he could then either extort money from winning applicants who had never entered the program to begin with or sell their winning slots to others.”[46] ## References https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diversity_Immigrant_Visa ## Story 2: Trump Expected To Name Jerome Powell As Next Federal Reserve Chairman Replacing Chair Janet Yellen — A Dove or Continuation of Interventionist Easy Monetary Policy — Better Choice Was John Taylor — Taylor For Fed Chair and Powell for Vice Chair — Videos # Bill Gross on Fed Chair Candidates, Bonds, U.S. Deficit # Bill Gross on the Future of Asset Management and the Fed # Who is Jerome Powell? # Trump leaning toward Jerome Powell for Fed Chair: sources # The Economic Club of New York Event – Jerome Powell Published on Jun 28, 2017 Thursday June 1, 2017 Jerome Powell Governor, Federal Reserve System # Powell Is a Force at the Federal Reserve, Says Wallace # End The Fed? … Libertarian Republicans? … #AskRonPaul # President Trump Sells Out Candidate Trump’s Federal Reserve Campaign Promises # KEYNOTE ADDRESS – Jerome H. Powell # Trump Said to Be Leaning Toward Powell for Fed Chair # Powell, Taylor Said to Be Leading Fed Chair Choices # Trump: Fed’s a very important position Published on Oct 23, 2017 President Donald Trump on tech regulations, the Federal Reserve, NAFTA, the outlook for U.S. economic growth and defense spending. # Alan Greenspan Is ‘Nervous’ Bond Prices Are Too High Published on Aug 1, 2016 July 28 — Alan Greenspan, former Federal Reserve chairman and founder of Greenspan Associates, discusses nervousness over bond prices and moving into currencies to counter negative interest rates, as well as dealing with uncertainties in the global economy. He speaks with Bloomberg’s Alix Steel on “Bloomberg ‹GO›.” # Greenspan: You Can’t Fix U.S. Economy Until You Fix Entitlements Published on Dec 14, 2016 Dec.13 — Former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan discusses his outlook for productivity and U.S. economic growth. He speaks with Bloomberg’s David Westin. # Who will be next Fed chair? # BVTV: The race to be next Fed chair # The Men Who Will Soon Run The Federal Reserve – What You Need To Know # A Powell, Taylor Fed Hawkish to Markets, Says Zentner # What John Taylor Would Bring to the Federal Reserve Published on Oct 17, 2017 Oct.17 — David Riley, head of credit strategy at Bluebay Asset Management, and Ed Perks, chief investment officer at Franklin Templeton Multi-Asset Solutions, examine what John Taylor would offer as Federal Reserve Chairman. They speak on “Bloomberg Daybreak: Americas.” # Interview with Professor John Taylor # The Fed Should Raise Rates to Help the Economy – John Taylor Published on Nov 13, 2015 The Federal Reserve should return to conventional monetary policy as soon as possible as higher interest rates would be beneficial to the U.S. economy, said noted economist John Taylor of Stanford University. Taylor spoke with TheStreet during a conference called ‘Rethinking Monetary Policy,’ which was held at the Cato Institute in Washington D.C. Thursday. ‘To me the rethinking in some sense is going back and seeing why things worked well when they did in the ‘80s and ’90s until this period,’ said Taylor. ‘Rethinking means adapting some of the things that we forgot.’ Taylor argues that unconventional Fed policy, which was enacted in response to the financial crisis, has in some ways been detrimental. ‘The world has suffered in a way from being off track, from these very unusual policies. And so fixing that, getting back to where I think the Fed wants to go, would be an improvement,’ explained Taylor. ‘Just globally speaking, it’s not been a very successful decade,’ he added. Taylor argues for a rules-based policy system for Central Banks, saying it would lead to less volatility in policy making. TheStreet’s Rhonda Schaffler reports. # John B. Taylor’s Keynote Address: Monetary Rules for a Post-Crisis World # Monetary Policy Based on the Taylor Rule # Debate on the “Neutral” Interest Rate: Opening Presentations # Debate on the “Neutral” Interest Rate: John Taylor’s Take # Debate on the “Neutral” Interest Rate: Audience Q&A # A Powell, Taylor Fed Hawkish to Markets, Says Zentner # 5 Keys to Restoring America’s Prosperity: John B. Taylor In his new book, First Principles: Five Keys to Restoring America’s Prosperity, Stanford University professor of economics John B. Taylor, details the not-so-secret ingredients to rebuilding American’s economic future: predictable policy, rule of law, strong incentives, reliance on markets, and a clearly limited role for government. “America can be great again, economically speaking,” Taylor explains, “it’s just more recently where we’ve gone off track.” Taylor sat down with Reason Magazine Managing Editor Katherine Mangu-Ward to discuss his book, the principles that underlie America’s economic supremacy and what’s gone wrong over the past decade. Taylor is the Raymond Professor of Economics at Stanford University and the George Shultz Senior Fellow at Stanford’s Hoover Institution. He was Treasury Under Secretary for International Affairs from 2001 to 2005. His previous books include Getting Off Track: How Government Actions and Interventions Caused, Prolonged, and Worsened the Financial Crisis. # John B. Taylor “How Government Interventions Caused the Financial Crisis.” Author John B. Taylor discusses his book “Getting Off Track — How Government Actions and Interventions Caused, Prolonged, and Worsened the Financial Crisis,” with Reason.tv’s Michael C. Moynihan. # Is the Fed Making the Crisis Worse? – John B. Taylor # Uncommon Knowledge with John B. Taylor # Economist Lee Says Taylor Can Be One of Best Fed Chairs # The Fed Should Raise Rates to Help the Economy – John Taylor # Trump to Tap Jerome Powell as Next Fed Chairman ## The president is expected to announce his decision Thursday Federal Reserve governor Jerome Powell spoke in Washington on Oct. 3. He has been on the board of governors since 2012. PHOTO:JOSHUA ROBERTS/REUTERS If confirmed by the Senate, Mr. Powell would succeed Fed Chairwoman Janet Yellen, the central bank’s first female leader, whose four-year term as Fed chief expires in early February. In his five years at the Fed, Mr. Powell has been a reliable ally of Ms. Yellen and would likely continue the Fed’s current cautious approach to reversing the central bank’s crisis-era stimulus policies as the economy expands. That would mean gradually raising short-term interest rates in quarter-percentage-point steps through 2020 while slowly shrinking the Fed’s$4.2 trillion portfolio of Treasury and mortgage-backed securities it purchased to lower long-term rates.

Mr. Powell’s nomination would mark the first time in nearly four decades that a new president hasn’t asked the serving Fed leader to stay on for another term, even though that person was nominated by a president of a different party. The last time a first-term president didn’t do that was in 1978, when President Jimmy Carter chose G. William Miller to succeed Arthur Burns.

The president spoke with Mr. Powell on Tuesday, according to people familiar with the matter who couldn’t describe what they discussed.

Mr. Trump had settled on Mr. Powell by Saturday, but people familiar with the process had cautioned that he could change his mind. The president plans to formally announce the decision Thursday before he leaves for a trip to Asia on Friday.

Reached by phone Wednesday, both Mr. Powell and Ms. Yellen declined to comment. A Fed spokeswoman also declined to comment.

Ms. Yellen was one of five finalists for the position, along with Stanford University economics professor John Taylor, former Fed governor Kevin Warsh and National Economic Council Director Gary Cohn.

Mr. Taylor and Mr. Warsh didn’t respond to requests seeking comment Wednesday. Mr. Cohn’s spokeswoman didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.

Mr. Trump said in a video last week that he had “somebody very specific in mind” for the job. “It will be a person who hopefully will do a fantastic job,” Mr. Trump said in a video posted to Instagram, adding, “I think everybody will be very impressed.”

Fed officials began raising their benchmark federal-funds rate in December 2015 after holding it near zero for seven years following the financial crisis. They voted in June to lift rates to a range between 1% and 1.25% and in October started the process of slowly shrinking the Fed’s bond portfolio.

#### FED SPEECH ANALYZER

“The economy is as close to our assigned goals as it has been for many years,” Mr. Powell said in June. If it continues growing as expected, “I would view it as appropriate to continue to gradually raise rates.”

Officials have penciled in one more rate increase this year. But they indicated in September such increases are likely to end at a lower point than they had previously projected—at a longer-run level of around 2.75%—considerably lower than where officials have stopped raising rates in the past.

Mr. Trump told The Wall Street Journal in July, “I’d like to see rates stay low.”

The Fed on Wednesday left short-term interest rates unchanged, but signaled it would consider lifting them before year’s end amid signs the economy is gaining momentum.

Mr. Powell has never dissented on a Fed monetary or regulatory policy vote and in speeches hasn’t deviated far from the board’s consensus.

Where he could lead a shift is on regulatory policy. He has advocated loosening some of the financial rules adopted by the Fed and other agencies since the crisis, a position that meshes with Mr. Trump’s deregulatory agenda. Mr. Powell has suggested softening the Volcker rule barring banks from using their own money to make risky bets and easing some bank stress tests.

He also has endorsed reviewing some of the supervisory duties imposed on banks’ boards of directors to prevent them from being burdened with “an ever-increasing checklist.”

“More regulation is not the best answer to every problem,” Mr. Powell said in a speech in early October.

### How Fed Chairs Have Fared

#### A look at various Fed regimes, and how they used interest rates to manage inflation, growth and the economy

*Seasonally adjusted †Change from a year earlier in the price index for personal-consumption expenditures

Source: Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

“To some extent he offers Trump the best of both worlds. You get broadly speaking continuity of Yellen’s careful and relatively dovish approach to monetary policy but with somebody who is a card-carrying Republican and who is significantly more inclined to revisit some of the postcrisis regulations,” said Krishna Guha, vice chairman at Evercore ISI and a former New York Fed official.

Karen Petrou, managing partner of the financial-services consulting firm Federal Financial Analytics, said Mr. Powell’s recent remarks on regulation “were certainly much more flexible than [Ms. Yellen] has been.”

Mr. Powell, a lawyer, would be the first Fed leader in three decades without a Ph.D. in economics. Before joining the Fed board, Mr. Powell worked as an investment banker in New York City, as Treasury undersecretary for financial institutions in the George H.W. Bush administration, as a partner at the Carlyle Group and as a scholar at the Bipartisan Policy Center.

That background could serve him well, said Aaron Klein, an economic studies fellow at the Brookings Institution and director of the Center on Regulation and Markets.

“The Federal Reserve’s mandate has grown significantly since the financial crisis,” he said. “With a broader mandate, one should expect broader and more diverse backgrounds of potential good fits for a chair.”

“He would represent continuity of the Fed system and culture but a break from the predominance of monetary policy as the core background of the chair,” Mr. Klein said.

The decision marks the culmination of an unusually public and drawn-out search for one of the top economic policy-making jobs in the world.

Mr. Trump upended the usually staid selection process by openly weighing the pros and cons of various candidates and asking lawmakers, businesspeople and media personalities for their input.

Mr. Trump polled GOP senators last month on their preferred choice at a lunch on Capitol Hill, and said he was still considering “two, and maybe three” people for the job.

Mr. Trump has other opportunities to reshape the central bank. Randal Quarles, his first nominee to the Fed’s powerful seven-member board of governors, took office in October. Three other seats remain open.

Nominations for all board positions, including chairman and vice chairman, are subject to Senate confirmation.

Mr. Powell should have little trouble winning Senate approval, but his views could clash with those of some Republican senators who have criticized him for supporting the Fed’s easy-money and postcrisis regulatory policies.

He won confirmation to the Fed with bipartisan support in the Senate twice before: to fill an unfinished governor’s term in 2012 and for a full term in 2014. Some Republicans have suggested he could face difficult questions from his own side of the aisle. “I think we should move in a different direction,” from current Fed policies, Sen. Pat Toomey (R., Pa.) said last month about the possibility of a Powell nomination.

Write to Kate Davidson at kate.davidson@wsj.com, Peter Nicholas at

https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-to-tap-feds-jerome-powell-for-fed-chairman-1509568166

# Taylor rule

In economics, a Taylor rule is a reduced form approximation of the responsiveness of the nominal interest rate, as set by the central bank, to changes in inflationoutput, or other economic conditions. In particular, the rule describes how, for each one-percent increase in inflation, the central bank tends to raise the nominal interest rate by more than one percentage point. This aspect of the rule is often called the Taylor principle. Although such rules may serve as concise, descriptive proxies for central bank policy, and are not explicitly proscriptively considered by central banks when setting nominal rates.

The rule was first proposed by John B. Taylor,[1] and simultaneously by Dale W. Henderson and Warwick McKibbin in 1993.[2] It is intended to foster price stability by systematically reducing uncertainty and increasing the credibility of future actions by the central bank. It may also avoid the inefficiencies of time inconsistency from the exercise of discretionary policy.[3] The Taylor rule synthesized, and provided a compromise between, competing schools of economics thought in a language devoid of rhetorical passion.[4] Although many issues remain unresolved and views still differ about how the Taylor rule can best be applied in practice, research shows that the rule has advanced the practice of central banking.[5]

## As an equation

According to Taylor’s original version of the rule, the nominal interest rate should respond to divergences of actual inflation rates from target inflation rates and of actual Gross Domestic Product (GDP) from potential GDP:

{\displaystyle i_{t}=\pi _{t}+r_{t}^{*}+a_{\pi }(\pi _{t}-\pi _{t}^{*})+a_{y}(y_{t}-{\bar {y}}_{t}).}

In this equation, {\displaystyle \,i_{t}\,} is the target short-term nominal interest rate (e.g. the federal funds rate in the US, the Bank of England base rate in the UK), {\displaystyle \,\pi _{t}\,} is the rate of inflation as measured by the GDP deflator{\displaystyle \pi _{t}^{*}} is the desired rate of inflation, {\displaystyle r_{t}^{*}} is the assumed equilibrium real interest rate, {\displaystyle \,y_{t}\,} is the logarithm of real GDP, and {\displaystyle {\bar {y}}_{t}} is the logarithm of potential output, as determined by a linear trend.

In this equation, both {\displaystyle a_{\pi }} and {\displaystyle a_{y}} should be positive (as a rough rule of thumb, Taylor’s 1993 paper proposed setting {\displaystyle a_{\pi }=a_{y}=0.5}).[6] That is, the rule “recommends” a relatively high interest rate (a “tight” monetary policy) when inflation is above its target or when output is above its full-employment level, in order to reduce inflationary pressure. It recommends a relatively low interest rate (“easy” monetary policy) in the opposite situation, to stimulate output. Sometimes monetary policy goals may conflict, as in the case of stagflation, when inflation is above its target while output is below full employment. In such a situation, a Taylor rule specifies the relative weights given to reducing inflation versus increasing output.

## The Taylor principle

By specifying {\displaystyle a_{\pi }>0}, the Taylor rule says that an increase in inflation by one percentage point should prompt the central bank to raise the nominal interest rate by more than one percentage point (specifically, by {\displaystyle 1+a_{\pi }}, the sum of the two coefficients on {\displaystyle \pi _{t}} in the equation above). Since the real interest rate is (approximately) the nominal interest rate minus inflation, stipulating {\displaystyle a_{\pi }>0} implies that when inflation rises, the real interest rate should be increased. The idea that the real interest rate should be raised to cool the economy when inflation increases (requiring the nominal interest rate to increase more than inflation does) has sometimes been called the Taylor principle.[7]

## Alternative versions of the rule

Effective federal funds rate and prescriptions from alternate versions of the Taylor Rule

While the Taylor principle has proved very influential, there is more debate about the other terms that should enter into the rule. According to some simple New Keynesian macroeconomic models, insofar as the central bank keeps inflation stable, the degree of fluctuation in output will be optimized (Blanchard and Gali call this property the ‘divine coincidence‘). In this case, the central bank does not need to take fluctuations in the output gap into account when setting interest rates (that is, it may optimally set {\displaystyle a_{y}=0}.) On the other hand, other economists have proposed including additional terms in the Taylor rule to take into account financial conditions: for example, the interest rate might be raised when stock prices, housing prices, or interest rate spreads increase.

• Taylor Rule 1993 – the original definition by John Taylor with {\displaystyle a_{\pi }=a_{y}=0.5}

• Taylor Rule 1999 – adapted and updated by John Taylor in a new research paper: {\displaystyle a_{\pi }=0.5,a_{y}\geq 0}

## Empirical relevance

Although the Federal Reserve does not explicitly follow the Taylor rule, many analysts have argued that the rule provides a fairly accurate summary of US monetary policy under Paul Volcker and Alan Greenspan.[8][9] Similar observations have been made about central banks in other developed economies, both in countries like Canada and New Zealand that have officially adopted inflation targeting rules, and in others like Germany where the Bundesbank‘s policy did not officially target the inflation rate.[10][11] This observation has been cited by ClaridaGalí, and Gertler as a reason why inflation had remained under control and the economy had been relatively stable (the so-called ‘Great Moderation‘) in most developed countries from the 1980s through the 2000s.[8] However, according to Taylor, the rule was not followed in part of the 2000s, possibly leading to the housing bubble.[12][13] Certain research has determined that some households form their expectations about the future path of interest rates, inflation, and unemployment in a way that is consistent with Taylor-type rules.[14]

## Criticisms

Athanasios Orphanides (2003) claims that the Taylor rule can misguide policy makers since they face real-time data. He shows that the Taylor rule matches the US funds rate less perfectly when accounting for these informational limitations and that an activist policy following the Taylor rule would have resulted in an inferior macroeconomic performance during the Great Inflation of the seventies.[15]

In 2015, financial manager Bill Gross said the Taylor rule “must now be discarded into the trash bin of history”, in light of tepid GDP growth in the years after 2009.[16] Gross believed low interest rates were not the cure for decreased growth, but the source of the problem.

## References

1. Jump up^ Taylor, John B. (1993). “Discretion versus Policy Rules in Practice” (PDF). Carnegie-Rochester Conference Series on Public Policy39: 195–214. (The rule is introduced on page 202.)
2. Jump up^ Henderson, D. W.; McKibbin, W. (1993). “A Comparison of Some Basic Monetary Policy Regimes for Open Economies: Implications of Different Degrees of Instrument Adjustment and Wage Persistence”. Carnegie-Rochester Conference Series on Public Policy39: 221–318. doi:10.1016/0167-2231(93)90011-K.
3. Jump up^ Taylor, John (2012). First Principles: Five Keys to Restoring America’s Economic Prosperity. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, Inc. p. 126
4. Jump up^ Kahn, George A.; Asso, Pier Francesco; Leeson, Robert (2007). “The Taylor Rule and the Transformation of Monetary Policy”. Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City Working Paper 07-11SSRN .
5. Jump up^ Asso, Pier Francesco; Kahn, George A.; Leeson, Robert (2010). “The Taylor Rule and the Practice of Central Banking”. Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City Working Paper 10-05SSRN .
6. Jump up^ Athanasios Orphanides (2008). “Taylor rules,” The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics, 2nd Edition. v. 8, pp. 2000-2004, equation (7).Abstract.
7. Jump up^ Davig, Troy; Leeper, Eric M. (2007). “Generalizing the Taylor Principle”. American Economic Review97 (3): 607–635. JSTOR 30035014doi:10.1257/aer.97.3.607.
8.  Clarida, Richard; Galí, Jordi; Gertler, Mark (2000). “Monetary Policy Rules and Macroeconomic Stability: Theory and Some Evidence”. Quarterly Journal of Economics115 (1): 147–180. JSTOR 2586937doi:10.1162/003355300554692.
9. Jump up^ Lowenstein, Roger (2008-01-20). “The Education of Ben Bernanke”The New York Times.
10. Jump up^ Bernanke, Ben; Mihov, Ilian (1997). “What Does the Bundesbank Target?”. European Economic Review41 (6): 1025–1053. doi:10.1016/S0014-2921(96)00056-6.
11. Jump up^ Clarida, Richard; Gertler, Mark; Galí, Jordi (1998). “Monetary Policy Rules in Practice: Some International Evidence”. European Economic Review42 (6): 1033–1067. doi:10.1016/S0014-2921(98)00016-6.
12. Jump up^ Taylor, John B. (2008). “The Financial Crisis and the Policy Responses: An Empirical Analysis of What Went Wrong” (PDF).
13. Jump up^ Taylor, John B. (2009). Getting Off Track: How Government Actions and Interventions Caused, Prolonged, and Worsened the Financial Crisis. Hoover Institution Press. ISBN 0-8179-4971-2.
14. Jump up^ Carvalho, Carlos; Nechio, Fernanda (2013). “Do People Understand Monetary Policy?”. Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco Working Paper 2012-01SSRN .
15. Jump up^ Orphanides, A. (2003). “The Quest for Prosperity without Inflation”. Journal of Monetary Economics50 (3): 633–663. doi:10.1016/S0304-3932(03)00028-X.
16. Jump up^ Bill Gross (July 30, 2015). “Gross: Low rates are the problem, not the solution”CNBC. Retrieved July 30, 2015.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taylor_rule

# Real interest rate

Yields on inflation-indexed government bonds of selected countries and maturities.

The real interest rate is the rate of interest an investor, saver or lender receives (or expects to receive) after allowing for inflation. It can be described more formally by the Fisher equation, which states that the real interest rate is approximately the nominal interest rate minus the inflation rate.

If, for example, an investor were able to lock in a 5% interest rate for the coming year and anticipated a 2% rise in prices, they would expect to earn a real interest rate of 3%.[1] The expected real interest rate is not a single number, as different investors have different expectations of future inflation. Since the inflation rate over the course of a loan is not known initially, volatility in inflation represents a risk to both the lender and the borrower.

In the case of contracts stated in terms of the nominal interest rate, the real interest rate is known only at the end of the period of the loan, based on the realized inflation rate; this is called the ex-post real interest rate. Since the introduction of inflation-indexed bondsex-ante real interest rates have become observable.[2]

## Risks

In economics and finance, an individual who lends money for repayment at a later point in time expects to be compensated for the time value of money, or not having the use of that money while it is lent. In addition, they will want to be compensated for the risks of having less purchasing power when the loan is repaid. These risks are systematic risks, regulatory risks and inflation risks. The first includes the possibility that the borrower will default or be unable to pay on the originally agreed upon terms, or that collateral backing the loan will prove to be less valuable than estimated. The second includes taxation and changes in the law which would prevent the lender from collecting on a loan or having to pay more in taxes on the amount repaid than originally estimated. The third takes into account that the money repaid may not have as much buying power from the perspective of the lender as the money originally lent, that is inflation, and may include fluctuations in the value of the currencies involved.

Nominal interest rates include all three risk factors, plus the time value of the money itself.
Real interest rates include only the systematic and regulatory risks and are meant to measure the time value of money.

The “real interest rate” in an economy is often considered to be the rate of return on a risk free investment, such as US Treasury notes, minus an index of inflation, such as the rate of change of the CPI or GDP deflator.

### Fisher equation

The relation between real and nominal interest rates and the expected inflation rate is given by the Fisher equation

{\displaystyle 1+i=(1+r)(1+\pi _{e})}

where

i = nominal interest rate;
r = real interest rate;
{\displaystyle \pi _{e}} = expected inflation rate.

For example, if somebody lends $1000 for a year at 10%, and receives$1100 back at the end of the year, this represents a 10% increase in her purchasing power if prices for the average goods and services that she buys are unchanged from what they were at the beginning of the year. However, if the prices of the food, clothing, housing, and other things that she wishes to purchase have increased 25% over this period, she has in fact suffered a real loss of about 15% in her purchasing power. (Notice that the approximation here is a bit rough; since 1.1/1.25 = 0.88 = 1 – 0.12, the actual loss of purchasing power is exactly 12%.

### Variations in inflation

The inflation rate will not be known in advance. People often base their expectation of future inflation on an average of inflation rates in the past, but this gives rise to errors. The real interest rate ex-post may turn out to be quite different from the real interest rate (ex-ante real interest rate) that was expected in advance. Borrowers hope to repay in cheaper money in the future, while lenders hope to collect on more expensive money. When inflation and currency risks are underestimated by lenders, then they will suffer a net reduction in buying power.

The complexity increases for bonds issued for a long term, where the average inflation rate over the term of the loan may be subject to a great deal of uncertainty. In response to this, many governments have issued real return bonds, also known as inflation-indexed bonds, in which the principal value and coupon rises each year with the rate of inflation, with the result that the interest rate on the bond approximates a real interest rate. (E.g., the three-month indexation lag of TIPS can result in a divergence of as much as 0.042% from the real interest rate, according to research by Grishchenko and Huang.[3]) In the US, Treasury Inflation Protected Securities (TIPS) are issued by the US Treasury.

The expected real interest rate can vary considerably from year to year. The real interest rate on short term loans is strongly influenced by the monetary policy of central banks. The real interest rate on longer term bonds tends to be more market driven, and in recent decades, with globalized financial markets, the real interest rates in the industrialized countries have become increasingly correlated. Real interest rates have been low by historical standards since 2000, due to a combination of factors, including relatively weak demand for loans by corporations, plus strong savings in newly industrializing countries in Asia. The latter has offset the large borrowing demands by the US Federal Government, which might otherwise have put more upward pressure on real interest rates.

Related is the concept of “risk return”, which is the rate of return minus the risks as measured against the safest (least-risky) investment available. Thus if a loan is made at 15% with an inflation rate of 5% and 10% in risks associated with default or problems repaying, then the “risk adjusted” rate of return on the investment is 0%.

## Importance in economic theory

Effective federal funds rate and prescriptions from alternate versions of the Taylor Rule

The amount of physical investment—in particular the purchasing of new machines and other productive capacity—that firms engage in depends on the level of real interest rates, because such purchases typically must be financed by issuing new bonds. If real interest rates are high, the cost of borrowing may exceed the real physical return of some potentially purchased machines (in the form of output produced); in that case those machines will not be purchased. Lower real interest rates would make it profitable to borrow to finance the purchasing of a greater number of machines.

The real interest rate is used in various economic theories to explain such phenomena as the capital flightbusiness cycle and economic bubbles. When the real rate of interest is high, that is, demand for credit is high, then money will, all other things being equal, move from consumption to savings. Conversely, when the real rate of interest is low, demand will move from savings to investment and consumption. Different economic theories, beginning with the work of Knut Wicksell have had different explanations of the effect of rising and falling real interest rates. Thus, international capital moves to markets that offer higher real rates of interest from markets that offer low or negative real rates of interest triggering speculation in equities, estates and exchange rates.

### Real federal funds rate

In setting monetary policy, the U.S. Federal Reserve (and other central banks) establish an interest rate at which they lend to banks. This is the federal funds rate. By setting this rate low, they can encourage borrowing and thus economic activity; or the reverse by raising the rate. Like any interest rate, there are a nominal and a real value defined as described above. Further, there is a concept called the “equilibrium real federal funds rate” (r*), alternatively called the “natural rate of interest” or the “neutral real rate”, which is the “level of the real federal funds rate, if allowed to prevail for several years, [that] would place economic activity at its potential and keep inflation low and stable.” There are various methods used to estimate this amount, using tools such as the Taylor Rule. It is possible for this rate to be negative.[4]

## Negative real interest rates

The real interest rate solved from the Fisher equation is

{\displaystyle {\frac {1+i}{1+\pi }}-1=r}

If there is a negative real interest rate, it means that the inflation rate is greater than the nominal interest rate. If the Federal funds rate is 2% and the inflation rate is 10%, then the borrower would gain 7.27% of every dollar borrowed per year.

{\displaystyle {\frac {1+0.02}{1+0.1}}-1=-0.0727}

Negative real interest rates are an important factor in government fiscal policy. Since 2010, the U.S. Treasury has been obtaining negative real interest rates on government debt, meaning the inflation rate is greater than the interest rate paid on the debt.[5] Such low rates, outpaced by the inflation rate, occur when the market believes that there are no alternatives with sufficiently low risk, or when popular institutional investments such as insurance companies, pensions, or bond, money market, and balanced mutual funds are required or choose to invest sufficiently large sums in Treasury securities to hedge against risk.[6][7]Lawrence Summers stated that at such low rates, government debt borrowing saves taxpayer money, and improves creditworthiness.[8][9] In the late 1940s through the early 1970s, the US and UK both reduced their debt burden by about 30% to 40% of GDP per decade by taking advantage of negative real interest rates, but there is no guarantee that government debt rates will continue to stay so low.[6][10] Between 1946 and 1974, the US debt-to-GDP ratio fell from 121% to 32% even though there were surpluses in only eight of those years which were much smaller than the deficits.[11]

## References

1. Jump up^
2. Jump up^ “FRB: Speech with Slideshow–Bernanke, Long-Term Interest Rates–March 1, 2013”http://www.federalreserve.gov. Retrieved 2017-03-07.
3. Jump up^ Grishchenko, Olesya V.; Jing-zhi Huang (June 2012). “Inflation Risk Premium: Evidence from the TIPS Market” (PDF). Finance and Economics Discussion Series. Divisions of Research & Statistics and Monetary Affairs Federal Reserve Board, Washington, D.C. Retrieved 26 May 2013.
4. Jump up^ U.S. Federal Reserve-Remarks by Vice Chairman Roger W. Ferguson Jr. October 29, 2004
5. Jump up^ Saint Louis Federal Reserve (2012) “5-Year Treasury Inflation-Indexed Security, Constant Maturity” FRED Economic Data chart from government debt auctions (the x-axis at y=0 represents the inflation rate over the life of the security)
6.  Carmen M. Reinhart and M. Belen Sbrancia (March 2011) “The Liquidation of Government Debt” National Bureau of Economic Research working paper No. 16893
7. Jump up^ David Wessel (August 8, 2012) “When Interest Rates Turn Upside Down” Wall Street Journal (full text)
8. Jump up^ Lawrence Summers (June 3, 2012) “Breaking the negative feedback loop” Reuters
9. Jump up^ Matthew Yglesias (May 30, 2012) “Why Are We Collecting Taxes?” Slate
10. Jump up^ William H. Gross (May 2, 2011) “The Caine Mutiny (Part 2)”PIMCO Investment Outlook
11. Jump up^ “Why the U.S. Government Never, Ever Has to Pay Back All Its Debt” The Atlantic, February 1, 2013

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_interest_rate

# John B. Taylor

John Taylor
Personal details
Born John Brian Taylor
December 8, 1946 (age 70)
Yonkers, New YorkU.S.
Political party Republican
Education Princeton University (BA)
Stanford University (PhD)
Field Monetary economics
School or
New Keynesian economics
Doctoral
Theodore Wilbur Anderson[1]
Doctoral
students
Lawrence J. Christiano
Influences Milton Friedman
Paul Volcker
E. Philip Howrey
Alan Greenspan
Contributions Taylor rule
Information at IDEAS / RePEc

John Brian Taylor (born December 8, 1946) is the Mary and Robert Raymond Professor of Economics at Stanford University, and the George P. Shultz Senior Fellow in Economics at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution.[2]

Born in Yonkers, New York, he graduated from Shady Side Academy[3] and earned his A.B. from Princeton University in 1968 and Ph.D. from Stanford in 1973, both in economics. He taught at Columbia University from 1973–1980 and the Woodrow Wilson School and Economics Department of Princeton University from 1980–1984 before returning to Stanford. He has received several teaching prizes and teaches Stanford’s introductory economics course as well as Ph.D. courses in monetary economics.[4]

In research published in 1979 and 1980 he developed a model of price and wage setting—called the staggered contract model—which served as an underpinning of a new class of empirical models with rational expectations and sticky prices—sometimes called new Keynesian models.[5][6] In a 1993 paper he proposed the Taylor rule,[7] intended as a recommendation about how nominal interest rates should be determined, which then became a rough summary of how central banks actually do set them. He has been active in public policy, serving as the Under Secretary of the Treasury for International Affairs during the first term of the George W. Bush Administration. His book Global Financial Warriors chronicles this period.[8] He was a member of the President’s Council of Economic Advisors during the George H. W. Bush Administration and Senior Economist at the Council of Economic Advisors during the Ford and Carter Administrations.

In 2012 he was included in the 50 Most Influential list of Bloomberg Markets Magazine. Thomson Reuters lists Taylor among the ‘citation laureates‘ who are likely future winners of the Nobel Prize in Economics.[9]

Taylor’s research—including the staggered contract model, the Taylor rule, and the construction of a policy tradeoff (Taylor) curve[10] employing empirical rational expectations models[11]—has had a major impact on economic theory and policy.[12] Former Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke has said that Taylor’s “influence on monetary theory and policy has been profound,”[13] and Federal Reserve Chair Janet Yellen has noted that Taylor’s work “has affected the way policymakers and economists analyze the economy and approach monetary policy.”[14]

Taylor contributed to the development of mathematical methods for solving macroeconomic models under the assumption of rational expectations, including in a 1975 Journal of Political Economy paper, in which he showed how gradual learning could be incorporated in models with rational expectations;[15] a 1979 Econometrica paper in which he presented one of the first econometric models with overlapping price setting and rational expectations,[16] which he later expanded into a large multicountry model in a 1993 book Macroeconomic Policy in a World Economy,[11] and a 1983 Econometrica paper,[17] in which he developed with Ray Fair the first algorithm to solve large-scale dynamic stochastic general equilibrium models which became part of popular solution programs such as Dynare and EViews.[18]

In 1977, Taylor and Edmund Phelps, simultaneously with Stanley Fischer, showed that monetary policy is useful for stabilizing the economy if prices or wages are sticky, even when all workers and firms have rational expectations.[19] This demonstrated that some of the earlier insights of Keynesian economics remained true under rational expectations. This was important because Thomas Sargent and Neil Wallace had argued that rational expectations would make macroeconomic policy useless for stabilization;[20] the results of Taylor, Phelps, and Fischer showed that Sargent and Wallace’s crucial assumption was not rational expectations, but perfectly flexible prices.[21] These research projects together could considerably deepen our understanding of the limits of the policy-ineffectiveness proposition.[22]

Taylor then developed the staggered contract model of overlapping wage and price setting, which became one of the building blocks of the New Keynesian macroeconomics that rebuilt much of the traditional macromodel on rational expectations microfoundations.[23][24]

Taylor’s research on monetary policy rules traces back to his undergraduate studies at Princeton.[25][26] He went on in the 1970s and 1980s to explore what types of monetary policy rules would most effectively reduce the social costs of inflation and business cycle fluctuations: should central banks try to control the money supply, the price level, or the interest rate; and should these instruments react to changes in output, unemployment, asset prices, or inflation rates? He showed[27] that there was a tradeoff—later called the Taylor curve[28]—between the volatility of inflation and that of output. Taylor’s 1993 paper in the Carnegie-Rochester Conference Series on Public Policy proposed that a simple and effective central bank policy would manipulate short-term interest rates, raising rates to cool the economy whenever inflation or output growth becomes excessive, and lowering rates when either one falls too low.[7] Taylor’s interest rate equation has come to be known as the Taylor rule, and it is now widely accepted as an effective formula for monetary decision making.[29]

A key stipulation of the Taylor rule, sometimes called the Taylor principle,[30] is that the nominal interest rate should increase by more than one percentage point for each one-percent rise in inflation. Some empirical estimates indicate that many central banks today act approximately as the Taylor rule prescribes, but violated the Taylor principle during the inflationary spiral of the 1970s.[31]

## Recent research

Taylor’s recent research has been on the financial crisis that began in 2007 and the world economic recession. He finds that the crisis was primarily caused by flawed macroeconomic policies from the U.S. government and other governments. Particularly, he focuses on the Federal Reserve which, under Alan Greenspan, a personal friend of Taylor, created “monetary excesses” in which interest rates were kept too low for too long, which then directly led to the housing boom in his opinion.[32] He also believes that Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae spurred on the boom and that the crisis was misdiagnosed as a liquidity rather than a credit risk problem.[33] He wrote that, “government actions and interventions, not any inherent failure or instability of the private economy, caused, prolonged, and worsen the crisis.”[34]

Taylor’s research has also examined the impact of fiscal policy in the recent recession. In November 2008, writing for The Wall Street Journal opinion section, he recommended four measures to fight the economic downturn: (a) permanently keeping all income tax ratesthe same, (b) permanently creating a worker’s tax credit equal to 6.2 percent of wages up to \$8,000, (c) incorporating “automatic stabilizers” as part of overall fiscal plans, and (d) enacting a short-term stimulus plan that also meets long term objectives against waste and inefficiency. He stated that merely temporary tax cuts would not serve as a good policy tool.[35] His research[36] with John Cogan, Tobias Cwik, and Volcker Wieland showed that the multiplier is much smaller in new Keynesian than in old Keynesian models, a result that was confirmed by researchers at central banks.[37] He evaluated the 2008 and 2009 stimulus packages and argued that they were not effective in stimulating the economy.[38]

In a June 2011 interview on Bloomberg Television, Taylor stressed the importance of long term fiscal reform that sets the U.S. federal budget on a path towards being balanced. He cautioned that the Fed should move away from quantitative easing measures and keep to a more static, stable monetary policy. He also criticized fellow economist Paul Krugman‘s advocacy of additional stimulus programs from Congress, which Taylor said will not help in the long run.[39] In his 2012 book First Principles: Five Keys to Restoring America’s Prosperity, he endeavors to explain why these reforms are part of a broader set of principles of economic freedom.

## Selected publications

Reprinted in Taylor, John B. (1991), “Staggered wage setting in a macro model”, in Mankiw, N. Gregory; Romer, David, New Keynesian economics, volume 1, Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press, pp. 233–42, ISBN 9780262631334.
• Taylor, John B. (September 1979). “Estimation and control of a macroeconomic model with rational expectations”. EconometricaWiley47 (5): 1267–86. JSTOR 1911962doi:10.2307/1911962.
• Taylor, John B. (December 1980). “Scale economies, product differentiation, and the pattern of trade”. The American Economic ReviewAmerican Economic Association70 (5): 950–59. JSTOR 1805774. Pdf.
• Taylor, John B. (1986), ‘New econometric approaches to stabilization policy in stochastic models of macroeconomic fluctuations’. Ch. 34 of Handbook of Econometrics, vol. 3, Z. Griliches and M.D. Intriligator, eds. Elsevier Science Publishers.
• Taylor, John B. (December 1993). “Discretion versus policy rules in practice”Carnegie-Rochester Conference Series on Public PolicyElsevier39: 195–214. doi:10.1016/0167-2231(93)90009-L. Pdf.
• Taylor, John B. (1999), “An historical analysis of monetary policy rules”, in Taylor, John B., Monetary policy rules, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, ISBN 9780226791265.
• Taylor, John B. (2007). Global financial warriors: the untold story of international finance in the post-9/11 world. New York: W.W. Norton. ISBN 9780393064483.
• Taylor, John B. (2008), “Housing and monetary policy”, in Reserve Bank of Kansas City, Housing, housing finance, and monetary policy: a symposium sponsored by the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City, Jackson Hole, Wyoming, August 30-September 1, 2007, Kansas City, Missouri: Reserve Bank of Kansas City, pp. 463–76, OCLC 170267547
• Taylor, John B. (2009), “The financial crisis and the policy response: an empirical analysis of what went wrong”, in Bank of Canada Staff, Festschrift in honour of David Dodge’s contributions to Canadian public policy: proceedings of a conference held by the Bank of Canada, November, 2008, Ottawa: Bank of Canada, pp. 1–18, ISBN 9780660199276.
• Taylor, John B. (2009). Getting off track: how government actions and interventions caused, prolonged, and worsened the financial crisis. Stanford, California: Hoover Institution Press. ISBN 9780817949716.
• Taylor, John B.; Shultz, George P.; Scott, Kenneth, eds. (2009). Ending government bailouts as we know them. Stanford, California: Hoover Institution Press. ISBN 9780817911287.
• Taylor, John B.; Ryan, Paul D. (30 November 2010). “Refocus the Fed on price stability instead of bailing out fiscal policy”Investor’s Business Daily. Archived from the original on 13 April 2011.
• Taylor, John B. (2012). First principles: five keys to restoring America’s prosperity. New York: W.W. Norton. ISBN 9780393345452.

## References

1. Jump up^ Taylor, John B. (September 24, 2016). “The Statistical Analysis of Policy Rules”economicsone.com. Economics One (A blog by John B. Taylor). Retrieved October 2, 2016.
2. Jump up^ “Hoover Institution Senior Fellow: Biography”Hoover Institution. Retrieved 27 October 2011.
4. Jump up^ Taylor, John B. “Curriculum vitae” (pdf). Stanford University.
5. Jump up^ Taylor, John B. (May 1979). “Staggered wage setting in a macro model”. The American Economic ReviewAmerican Economic Association69 (2): 108–113. JSTOR 1801626.
Reprinted in Taylor, John B. (1991), “Staggered wage setting in a macro model”, in Mankiw, N. Gregory; Romer, David, New Keynesian economics, volume 1, Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press, pp. 233–242, ISBN 9780262631334.
6. Jump up^ Taylor, John B. (February 1980). “Aggregate dynamics and staggered contracts”Journal of Political EconomyChicago Journals88 (1): 1–23. JSTOR 1830957doi:10.1086/260845.
7.  Taylor, John B. (December 1993). “Discretion versus policy rules in practice”Carnegie-Rochester Conference Series on Public PolicyElsevier39: 195–214. doi:10.1016/0167-2231(93)90009-L. Pdf.
8. Jump up^ Taylor, John B. (2007). Global financial warriors: the untold story of international finance in the post-9/11 world. New York: W.W. Norton. ISBN 9780393064483.
9. Jump up^ “Hall of ‘citation laureates’ (in economics)”science.thomsonreuters.com. Thomson-Reuters.
10. Jump up^ Taylor, John B. (September 1979). “Estimation and control of a macroeconomic model with rational expectations”EconometricaWiley47 (5): 1267–86. JSTOR 1911962doi:10.2307/1911962. Pdf.
Reprinted in Taylor, John B. (1981), “Estimation and control of a macroeconomic model with rational expectations”, in Lucas, Jr., Robert E.; Sargent, Thomas J., Rational expectations and econometric practice, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, ISBN 9780816610983.
11.  Taylor, John B. (1993). Macroeconomic policy in a world economy: from econometric design to practical operation. New York: W.W. Norton. ISBN 9780393963168.
12. Jump up^ Ben Bernanke refers to the “three concepts named after John that are central to understanding our macroeconomic experience of the past three decades—the Taylor curve, the Taylor rule, and the Taylor principle.” in “Opening Remarks,” Conference on John Taylor’s Contributions to Monetary Theory and Policy
13. Jump up^ Bernanke, Ben (2007). Opening Remarks. Remarks at the Conference on John Taylor’s Contributions to Monetary Theory and Policy.
14. Jump up^ Yellen, Janet (2007). Policymaker Roundtable (PDF).Remarks at the Conference on John Taylor’s Contributions to Monetary Theory and Policy.
15. Jump up^ Taylor, John B. (October 1975). “Monetary policy during a transition to rational expectations”Journal of Political EconomyChicago Journals83 (5): 1009–22. JSTOR 1830083doi:10.1086/260374.
16. Jump up^ Taylor, John B. (September 1979). “Estimation and control of a macroeconomic model with rational expectations”. EconometricaWiley47 (5): 1267–86. JSTOR 1911962doi:10.2307/1911962.
17. Jump up^ Taylor, John B.; Fair, Ray C. (July 1983). “Solution and maximum likelihood estimation of dynamic nonlinear rational expectations models”EconometricaWiley51 (4): 1169–85. JSTOR 1912057doi:10.2307/1912057.
18. Jump up^ Judd, Kenneth; Kubler, Felix; Schmedders, Karl (2003), “Computational methods for dynamic equilibria with heterogeneous agents”, in Dewatripont, Mathias; Hansen, Lars Peter; Turnovsky, Stephen J., Advances in economics and econometrics theory and applications (volume 3), Cambridge, U.K. New York: Cambridge University Press, p. 247, ISBN 9781280163388 and “Eviews Users Guide II.”
19. Jump up^ Taylor, John B.; Phelps, Edmund S. (February 1977). “Stabilizing powers of monetary policy under rational expectations”Journal of Political EconomyChicago Journals85 (1): 163–90. JSTOR 1828334doi:10.1086/260550.
20. Jump up^ Sargent, Thomas; Wallace, Neil (April 1975). “‘Rational’ expectations, the optimal monetary instrument, and the optimal money supply rule”Journal of Political EconomyChicago Journals83 (2): 241–54. JSTOR 1830921doi:10.1086/260321.
21. Jump up^ Blanchard, Olivier (2000), “Epliogue”, in Blanchard, Olivier, Macroeconomics (2nd ed.), Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, p. 543, ISBN 9780130557872.
22. Jump up^ Galbács, Peter (2015). The theory of new classical macroeconomics: a positive critique. Heidelberg / New York / Dordrecht / London: Springer. ISBN 9783319175782doi:10.1007/978-3-319-17578-2.
23. Jump up^ King, Robert G.; Wolman, Alexander (1999), “What should the monetary authority do when prices are sticky?”, in Taylor, John B., Monetary policy rules, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, ISBN 9780226791265.
24. Jump up^ Taylor, John B. (1999), “Staggered price and wage setting in macroeconomics”, in Taylor, John B.; Woodford, Michael, Handbook of macroeconomics, Amsterdam New York: North-Holland Elsevier, pp. 1009–50, ISBN 9780444501585.
25. Jump up^ Taylor, John B. (April 1968). Fiscal and monetary stabilization policies in a model of endogenous cyclical growth (BA thesis). Princeton University.
26. Jump up^ Taylor, John B. (October 1968). “Fiscal and monetary stabilization policies in a model of endogenous cyclical growth”(pdf). Research Memorandum No. 104. Econometric Research Program, Princeton University. OCLC 22687344.
27. Jump up^ Taylor, John B. (September 1979). “Estimation and control of a macroeconomic model with rational expectations”EconometricaWiley47 (5): 1267–86. JSTOR 1911962doi:10.2307/1911962.
28. Jump up^ Bernanke, Ben (2004). The Great Moderation. Remarks at the meeting of the Eastern Economic Association.
29. Jump up^ Orphanides, Athanasios (2007). Taylor rules (pdf). Finance and Economics Discussion Series 2007–18. Federal Reserve Board.
30. Jump up^ Davig, Troy; Leeper, Eric M. (June 2007). “Generalizing the Taylor Principle”. The American Economic ReviewAmerican Economic Association97 (3): 607–35. JSTOR 30035014.NBER Working Paper 11874, December 2005.
31. Jump up^ Clarida, Richard; Galí, Jordi; Gertler, Mark (February 2000). “Monetary policy rules and macroeconomic stability: evidence and some theory”Quarterly Journal of EconomicsOxford Journals115 (1): 147–80. doi:10.1162/003355300554692. Pdf.
32. Jump up^ Taylor, John B. (2008), “Housing and monetary policy”, in Reserve Bank of Kansas City, Housing, housing finance, and monetary policy: a symposium sponsored by the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City, Jackson Hole, Wyoming, August 30-September 1, 2007, Kansas City, Missouri: Reserve Bank of Kansas City, pp. 463–76, OCLC 170267547
33. Jump up^ Taylor, John B. (2009), “The financial crisis and the policy response: an empirical analysis of what went wrong (housing and monetary policy)”, in Bank of Canada Staff, Festschrift in honour of David Dodge’s contributions to Canadian public policy: proceedings of a conference held by the Bank of Canada, November, 2008, Ottawa: Bank of Canada, pp. 1–18, ISBN 9780660199276.
34. Jump up^ Taylor, John B. (February 9, 2009). “How government created the financial crisis”The Wall Street Journal. p. A19. Pdf.
35. Jump up^ Taylor, John B. (November 25, 2008). “Why permanent tax cuts are the best stimulus”The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved June 30, 2011.
36. Jump up^ Taylor, John B.; Cogan, John F.; Cwik, Tobias; Wieland, Volker (March 2010). “New Keynesian versus old Keynesian government spending multipliers”Journal of Economic Dynamics and ControlElsevier34 (3): 281–95. doi:10.1016/j.jedc.2010.01.010.
37. Jump up^ Coenen, Guenter; et al. (September 2011). “Effects of fiscal stimulus in structural models”American Economic Journal: MicroeconomicsAmerican Economic Association4 (1): 22–68. doi:10.1257/mac.4.1.22. Pdf.
38. Jump up^ Taylor, John B. (September 2011). “An empirical analysis of the revival of fiscal activism in the 2000s”Journal of Economic LiteratureAmerican Economic Association49 (3): 686–702. JSTOR 23071727doi:10.1257/jel.49.3.686. Pdf.
39. Jump up^ “Taylor Says U.S. Needs `Sound’ Monetary, Fiscal Policies”Bloomberg Television thru Washington Post. June 27, 2011. Retrieved June 30, 2011.