Voters vs. Google in 2020 General Election

Posted on July 8, 2019July 8, 2019 by Denise Simon

Donald Trump prevailed against the Google and Eric Schmidt forces but can it happen again?

Civis Analytics is back again and you can bet that Trump’s digital campaign director, Brad Parscale is in a David and Goliath force operation.

Dive into data with jobs at these 6 Chicago companies ...

So, Free Beacon describes Google, Schmidt and Civis Analytics as this:

A data firm backed by Eric Schmidt, the former executive chairman of Alphabet, Google’s parent company, has been paid millions of dollars by Democratic committees and is currently working for Joe Biden’s presidential campaign.

The idea for what became Civis Analytics emerged in the wake of President Obama’s 2012 re-election when Schmidt pitched Dan Wagner, the campaign’s chief analytics officer, on creating a lasting political data and website services firm. Schmidt, who remained an executive at Google and Alphabet, went on to quietly aid Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign. Less than one month after the elections it was announced that he had helped round up $22 million for Civis, where he is also a partial owner and sits on the group’s board of directors. In June, Schmidt stepped away as executive chairman of Alphabet, although he now acts as a technical advisor to the company’s leadership on policy issues.

Civis has provided data and tech services for a number of Democratic committees in recent years, with its most recent payments coming from the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC), which paid $63,400 for polling and website services during the first quarter of the 2020 cycle; the Democratic National Committee (DNC), which dished $33,900 to the firm for data analytics; Planned Parenthood Votes, which also pushed $33,900 to Civis for data analytics; and NextGen Climate Action, liberal billionaire Tom Steyer’s committee, which paid $16,000 for data and consulting services.

In addition to the committees, the presidential campaigns of Sens. Cory Booker (D., NJ), Elizabeth Warren (D., Mass.), and failed Senate candidate Robert “Beto” O’Rourke have also combined to pay tens of thousands for its services during the first three months of the year. Civis Analytics announced in late April that it will be working with Joe Biden’s presidential campaign for the 2020 election cycle, Bloomberg reported. Civis appears to be expanding its political team in Washington and New York, according to job postings on its website.

Now remember, Google is already white-listing and black-listing search results…

Eric Schmidt, the former CEO of Google and still an advisor surely has taken much of the same tactics with him including algorithm equations with him to the Biden and the rest of the Democrat candidates to skew results favorable to their respective political missions. While Google has a data warehouse analytics tool called BigQuery, Civis Analytics is also a select vendor for the Democrat National Committee. Other Civis Analytics customers include:

Where is some of these social justice policy concepts coming from that were introduced at both Democrat debates? Yet another project also tied to Civis Analytics call The New Progressive Agenda Project.

The New Progressive Agenda Project gives policymakers and advocates reliable congressional district and state-level polling data that would normally be out of reach for even the best-funded campaign. In the coming weeks, we’ll be periodically releasing new data on progressive proposals that are message-tested and ready to be introduced in the 116th Congress. Using the state-of-the-art modeling techniques employed by leading campaign professionals, we are confident that these policies will remain popular in the electorate at large while also engaging the progressive base. They have been carefully vetted by veteran campaigners from Civis Analytics, which was formed by the data scientists who oversaw Barack Obama’s 2012 re-election campaign. Civis’s political data science arm is one of the most reputable in the business. These numbers are the gold standard — they are actionable by candidates and campaigns.

It’s time for unabashed progressive policies that can win.

Today, we roll out our second set of policies:

Senator Bernie Sanders (@SenSanders) make the case for a Medical Innovation Fund

Senator Kamala Harris (@KamalaHarris) and Speaker Corey Johnson (@CoreyinNYC) make the case for ending cash bail

House candidate Ayanna Pressley (@AyannaPressley) makes the case for lead paint removal.

Indivisible Co-Founders Leah Greenberg (@Leahgreenb) and Ezra Levin (@ezralevin) make the case for automatic voter registration (AVR).

Methodology

Civis Analytics fielded support for four progressive policies to determine their levels of public support. Full question wording is available below, but here it is important to note that questions included a revenue pay-for where needed, as well as both partisan cues and counterframes throughout. In other words, respondents were told that these policies were being proposed by Democrats, and were given reasons why Republicans say they should oppose them. The sample for medical innovation prizes was 12,154, for automatic voter registration (8,357), for lead removal (12,166) and for bail reform (10,851)and these surveys were fielded between July 10th 2018 through September 30th 2018. Using modern machine learning techniques, Civis generated estimates for Clinton voters, Trump voters, Independent voters, drop-off voters (who voted in 2016 but not 2014) and the overall electorate. Because our goal is to provide information that can be immediately relevant to politicians, the overall number reflects a likely 2018 voters, not national adults. Sub-national opinion is presented in terms of two-way support (that is, excluding respondents who did not register an opinion one way or the other). Please direct methodological questions to Michael Sadowsky: [email protected].

For our second round of polling, we analyzed four policies:

Medical innovation prizes: We asked respondents whether they would support having the government fund a prize fund that would reward the creation of drugs and vaccines that improve health outcomes, with medication developed through this program sold cheaply to the American public without a patent. Forty-six percent of likely 2018 voters supported this policy, with 32 percent opposed.

Automatic voter registration: We asked respondents whether they would support having voter registration records automatically update when citizens interact with the DMV and other state agencies, unless they opt out. Forty-seven percent of likely 2018 voters supported this policy, with 36 percent opposed.

Lead removal: We asked respondents whether they would support a ten year program in which taxes on high-income earners would be raised to fund lead removal in houses with dangerous levels of lead paint. Forty-six percent of likely 2018 voters supported this policy, with 36 percent opposed.

Bail reform: We asked respondents if they would support shifting from the current cash bail-only system to one that allows judges to release some defendants, under the court’s supervision, if they are not considered a threat to society. Forty-two percent of likely 2018 voters supported this policy, with 39 percent opposed.

See ICE, Call FIRE

Posted on July 8, 2019July 8, 2019 by Denise Simon

Force for Immigrant Rights and Empowerment (FIRE)

Image may contain: text They do training. training on protecting our communities from ICE! Bring a Laptop! FIRE is located in several states and quite active in Texas, Illinois and California. This organization collaborates with RAICES. ‘Refugee and Immigrant Center for Education and Legal Services.

The training by FIRE just for Texas includes:

More than a dozen local and statewide nonprofits — including Dallas Catholic Charities, RAICES, the North Texas Dream Team and the ACLU of Texas — formed the Force for Immigrant Rights and Empowerment, known as FIRE.

The coalition hosts “Know Your Rights” sessions, where immigrants are taught to distinguish between arrest warrants signed by judges and those signed by ICE officers, which don’t grant ICE officers the legal right to enter someone’s home.

Immigrants also learn how to build an emergency family plan in case a parent is arrested and who to call in events of arrests, among other lessons.

President Trump has authorized aggressive deportations of illegal immigrants which hovers around 1 million cases. These deportations are not raids but rather individual cases where the judge has already ordered deportation. There will be some significant law enforcement confrontations as families are harboring these people. Further, there are thousands of households that include non-citizens as well as citizens that are receiving huge financial benefits from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. This has been going on since 1980 and those who are 62 years old or younger can either be evicted or have their benefits terminated if new rules take effect. HUD estimates it would save the taxpayer up to $210 million per year as just in Texas, there are 6000 households that fit this description. This new policy has not rolled out yet but is slated to occur by the end of the year. See more details here from the Federal Register.

ICE removes Guatemalan fugitive sought for aggravated ...

As for the million or more slated to be deported by ICE, it must be noted:

1. ICE suggests voluntary departure. This allows the deportee to leave the U.S. at their own expense and within a schedule. If ICE has to perform the deportation, any re-entry is a felony.

2. If hearings in a court or on appeals and there is a ‘no-show’, this is an automatic order of removal. Bail is non-refundable.

3. Once a judge orders deportation, ICE will arrange for travel documents and transportation, so the deportee has time to get affairs in order under the letter of ‘bag and baggage’.(Form I-166) This letter tells the deportee where and when to report for removal and how much baggage is allowed.

4. If the deportee cannot travel within the time limit due to extenuating circumstances including illness, they are required to file an application for a ‘stay’ until such time the circumstances clear.

5. If the ‘bag and baggage’ letter is ignored, then the full case is referred to the fugitive unit. Any of these arrests can take place at any time, under any condition or any location.

ICE has a database of criminal illegal fugitives and the crimes range from murder, rape to weapons trafficking, narcotics and underage pornography. Those cases slated for immediate and aggressive deportation which is reported in the million case range are the worst of the worst. Media wont tell you that and actually the immigrant groups noted above wont either.

Just last month:

MIAMI – Matthew T. Albence, deputy director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), and Anthony Salisbury, special agent in charge of ICE’s Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) Miami, announced the results of an international weapons trafficking operation with law enforcement partners in Argentina and Brazil.

The international operation resulted in a total of 25 arrests and 53 search warrants executed in three countries. Over the course of the operation, law enforcement seized 5,300 firearms and components, 167 explosives/ordinances and 15 silencers from the transnational criminal organization (TCO).

HSI Miami initiated the investigation into the TCO smuggling large quantities of weapons parts and accessories from the U.S. to Argentina and Brazil. The TCO exploited the U.S. Postal Service by illegally exporting weapon parts and ammunition regulated by the International Trafficking in Arms Regulations without the proper State Department licenses. Since the inception of this investigation, several HSI offices, as well as Argentinian and Brazilian authorities have conducted multiple search warrants and arrests netting significant quantities of firearms, firearms parts and more than $100,000 in cash.

Anyone care about the victims of crimes committed by illegals? Well ICE has a page for that. Go here to see just a few of the most wanted.

UN Report of Killing Squads and Deaths in Venezuela

Posted on July 6, 2019July 6, 2019 by Denise Simon

Primer:

Venezuelan security forces have been sending death squads to commit extrajudicial killings of young men, according to a United Nations report released on Thursday. The crime scenes are then staged to make it look like the victims were resisting arrest.

Caracas has said that about 5,287 people died last year when they refused to be detained by officers, and that this has been the case for a further 1,569 through the middle of May this year. However, the UN report suggests that many of these deaths were actually extrajudicial executions.

The report relays the accounts of 20 families, who say that masked men dressed in black from the Special Actions Forces (FAES) arrived at their homes in black vehicles without license plates. They then broke into their houses, assaulted the women and girls and stole belongings.

“They would separate young men from other family members before shooting them,” the report said.

“In every case, witnesses reported how FAES manipulated the crime scene and evidence. They would plant arms and drugs and fire their weapons against the walls or in the air to suggest a confrontation and to show the victim had ‘resisted authority.'” Read more here.

photo

Enhanced interactive dialogue on the situation of human rights in the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela

41st session of the Human Rights Council

Statement by UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Michelle Bachelet

5 July 2019

Mr President,
Members of the Human Rights Council,
Excellencies,

As requested by Council resolution 39/1, the Office has submitted a report on the human rights crisis in Venezuela.

In March, my staff conducted a technical visit to the country. Human rights officers also made nine visits to interview Venezuelan refugees and migrants in Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, Mexico, Peru and Spain.

Additionally, I was able to visit Caracas two weeks ago – the first official mission by a High Commissioner for Human Rights. I met with President Nicolás Maduro and several Government ministers and officials. I also met the president of the Supreme Court, the Attorney General and the Ombudsman. I held discussions with the President of the National Assembly, Juan Guaido, as well as Members of Parliament, and the President of the National Constituent Assembly.

I also had meetings with representatives of the Catholic Church, the business sector, academia, trade unions, human rights organisations, the diplomatic community, the United Nations country team, and approximately 200 victims.

Let me begin this update on a positive note. I am hopeful that the access which I was granted – together with the authorities’ subsequent acceptance of a continuing presence of two human rights officers to conduct monitoring, and commence providing technical assistance and advice – signify the beginning of positive engagement on the country’s many human rights issues.

However, as our report makes clear, essential institutions and the rule of law in Venezuela have been profoundly eroded. The exercise of freedom of opinion, expression, association and assembly, and the right to participate in public life, entail a risk of reprisals and repression. Our report notes attacks against actual or perceived opponents and human rights defenders, ranging from threats and smear campaigns to arbitrary detention, torture and ill-treatment, sexual violence, and killings and enforced disappearance.

Excessive and lethal force has repeatedly been used against protestors. My Office has also documented excessive use of force in the context of security operations by the Special Action Forces, with multiple killings, mainly of young men. Many may constitute extrajudicial killings, and should be fully investigated, with accountability of perpetrators, and guarantees of non-recurrence.

The death in custody six days ago of a retired Navy captain – allegedly after torture – is deeply regrettable. I note the opening of an investigation and the arrest of two military counter-intelligence officers in this context. However, there is a pattern of torture reports in Venezuela in the context of arbitrary detention. The authorities must ensure full investigation in accordance with international standards, as well as accountability and, where relevant, remedy for all cases of alleged torture.

Mr President,

The Venezuelan people are enduring an economic breakdown. Since 2013, the cumulative contraction of GDP has been 44.3%, and cumulative inflation since 2013 reached a dramatic 2,866,670% at the end of January 2019 – 2.8 million percent. Over the past two years, public revenue has dropped with the drastic reduction of oil exports. Figures published by the Central Bank of Venezuela on 28 May 2019 show that key economic indicators began to decline well before August 2017. Regardless, the latest economic sanctions are further exacerbating this situation, given that most of the country’s foreign exchange earnings derive from oil exports, many of which are linked to the US market. In addition, the effects of these sanctions appear to be affecting the State’s ability to provide basic health service to the population.

Humanitarian assistance from the United Nations and other actors has been gradually accepted by the Government. However, the scale of the crisis is such that it is difficult to fully respond to the needs of the people.

The situation has had a negative impact on people’s livelihoods – and indeed, their lifespan, particularly of those most vulnerable. In the course of my visit I met many people who are suffering. The minimum wage – which is estimated at around $7 USD per month cannot cover even 5% of the basic food basket for a family of five people. Deaths from malnutrition have been reported, although data on this, as many other, topics has not been released.

Venezuela is a country with many valuable resources, including formidable oil and gold reserves, a young and vibrant population, key location and systems which for many years provided free universal healthcare, education and other public services. The current and dramatic crisis has dramatic impact on economic, social and cultural rights as well as political and civil rights.

Many public services have all but collapsed, including transportation, electricity and water. The healthcare sector is in critical condition. The non-availability of basic medication and equipment is causing preventable deaths, while non-availability of contraception forces many women to bear children they will not be able to adequately care for. An assessment of humanitarian needs conducted by OCHA in March found that an estimated seven million people in Venezuela need humanitarian assistance: one quarter of the population.

Hunger and deprivation have led many to become migrants or refugees. Many are forced to leave in ill-health, without economic resources of any kind, and their human rights protection must be considered a matter of urgency.

I am also concerned about the situation of indigenous peoples in Venezuela. In particular, I note loss of control over their traditional lands, territories, and resources; militarization; violence; lack of access to adequate food and water; and the effects of mining.

Members of indigenous communities are reportedly being exploited in conditions of slavery for the illegal extraction of gold. There has been violence against some indigenous authorities and leaders, and statements by various officials have been reported, suggesting an intention to eliminate members of the Pemón community who oppose the Government.

As I said in Caracas, to all political leaders, the only way out of this crisis is to come together, in dialogue. I encourage the Government to view the opposition and human rights defenders as partners in the common cause of human rights and justice, and to plant the seeds for a durable political agreement that leads to reconciliation.

Among other points, the Government has agreed to allow us to carry out an evaluation of the National Commission for the Prevention of Torture, including a commitment to full access to all centres of detention. I look forward to the honouring of this and other commitments.

We will also conduct an assessment of major obstacles to access to justice. Furthermore, the authorities have stated they will engage more substantively with international human rights bodies. In particular, they have agreed to accept ten visits from the Council’s Special Procedures experts over the next two years.

We have also been consistently advocating for the release of all those who are currently in detention for acts of non-violent dissent. Prior to my visit, three detainees were released. Subsequently, 59 Colombian nationals, including one woman, who had been arbitrarily detained since 2016 were also released. And just yesterday, 22 detainees were also released. We welcome these releases and encourage the authorities to release others detained for the exercise of their human rights.

Above all, as I expressed in my meetings with victims and their families, all Venezuelans have fundamental human rights. They deserve to enjoy those rights. I sincerely hope that the Office will be able to assist in improving the human rights situation in Venezuela.

The situation is complex, but the report contains clear, concrete recommendations for the way forward. I sincerely hope the authorities will take these recommendations in the constructive spirit in which they are made.

As I said in Caracas, the fate of more than 30 million Venezuelans rests on the leadership’s willingness and ability to put the human rights of the people ahead of any personal, ideological or political ambitions. It is for this Council and the international community to support them in this shared endeavour. We should all be able to agree that all Venezuelans deserve a better life, free from fear, and with access to adequate food, water, health-care, housing and all other basic human needs. For my part, I stand ready to accompany the people of Venezuela.

Thank you Mr President.

Jeffrey Epstein Case, Judge Rules Immediate Document Release

Posted on July 3, 2019July 3, 2019 by Denise Simon

Jeffrey Epstein: DA Suggested Leniency In Sex Abuse Case ... photo

In part from the text of the Judge’s decision:

Accordingly, we VACATE the District Court’s orders entered on November 2, 2016, May 3, 2017,
and August 27, 2018, ORDER the unsealing of the summary judgment record as described further herein, and REMAND the cause to the District Court for particularized review of the remaining sealed
materials.
Judge Pooler concurs in this opinion except insofar as it orders
the immediate unsealing of the summary judgment record without a
remand.

The origins of this case lie in a decade‐old criminal proceeding
against financier Jeffrey Epstein (“Epstein”). On June 30, 2008, Epstein
pleaded guilty to Florida state charges of soliciting, and procuring a
person under the age of eighteen for, prostitution. The charges
stemmed from sexual activity with privately hired “masseuses,” some
of whom were under eighteen, Florida’s age of consent. Pursuant to
an agreement with state and federal prosecutors, Epstein pleaded to
the state charges. He received limited jail‐time, registered as a sex
offender, and agreed to pay compensation to his victims. In return,
prosecutors declined to bring federal charges.
Shortly after Epstein entered his plea, two of his victims,
proceeding as “Jane Doe 1” and “Jane Doe 2,” filed suit against the
Government in the Southern District of Florida under the Crime
Victims’ Rights Act (“CVRA”). The victims sought to nullify the plea agreement, alleging that the Government failed to fulfill its legal
obligations to inform and consult with them in the process leading up to Epstein’s plea deal.1
On December 30, 2014, two additional unnamed victims—one
of whom has now self‐identified as Plaintiff‐Appellee Virginia Giuffre
(“Giuffre”)—petitioned to join in the CVRA case. These petitioners
included in their filings not only descriptions of sexual abuse by
Epstein, but also new allegations of sexual abuse by several other
prominent individuals, “including numerous prominent American
politicians, powerful business executives, foreign presidents, a well‐
known Prime Minister, and other world leaders,” as well as
Dershowitz (a long‐time member of the Harvard Law School faculty
who had worked on Epstein’s legal defense) and Defendant‐Appellee
Ghislaine Maxwell (“Maxwell”).2

Read the full decision here.

Jeffrey Epstein never went to federal prison but his butler/houseman, Alfredo Rodriguez, did, for obstruction of justice. He was busted for hiding Epstein’s journal and trying to sell it. He has since died.

Sample entry of timeline from 2010:

April: Flight logs obtained as part of civil lawsuits against Epstein show an assortment of politicians, academics, celebrities, heads of state and world leaders flying on Epstein’s jets in the early 2000s. Among them: former President Bill Clinton, former national security adviser Sandy Berger, former Colombian President Andrés Pastrana and lawyer Alan Dershowitz.

Read the full investigative summary here from the Miami Herald.

Where is that 8.5 Tons of Uranium from Iran to Russia?

Posted on July 2, 2019July 2, 2019 by Denise Simon

Remember? During the Christmas holiday in 2015, so you easily could have missed the news or just forgotten it due to spiked eggnog.

Washington (AFP) – Iran sent a major shipment of low-enriched uranium materials to Russia on Monday, a key step in Tehran’s implementation of this year’s historic nuclear accord with world powers.

The United States hailed the move, which Secretary of State John Kerry said marked “significant progress” in Tehran’s fulfillment of a deal to stop it developing nuclear weapons.

The Russian foreign ministry confirmed the report after Ali Akbar Salehi, head of Iran’s Atomic Energy Organization, told the ISNA news agency: “The fuel exchange process has taken place.”

According to ISNA’s report, Iran had sent 8.5 tons of low-enriched nuclear material to Russia and received “around 140 tons of natural uranium in return.”

State Department spokesman Mark Toner described the cargo as a 25,000-pound “combination of forms of low-enriched uranium materials” including five and 20 percent enriched uranium, scrap metal and unfinished fuel plates. More here.

Kerry said that Iran’s shipment to Russia had already tripled the amount of time it would take to produce enough fuel for a bomb from two or three months up to six or nine.

And he dubbed it “a significant step toward Iran meeting its commitment to have no more than 300 kilograms of low-enriched uranium by Implementation Day.”

Now the question is, where is it now? Was this transaction for real in the first place? Any congressional investigation? Ambassador Stephen Mull before Congress stated the following:

Iran shipped out almost all of its enriched uranium stockpile. Pre-JCPOA, Iran had approximately 12,000 kilograms of enriched uranium. Now, Iran can have no more than 300 kilograms of up to 3.67% enriched uranium for the next 15 years. This, combined with Iran’s dismantlement of two-thirds of its centrifuges, has effectively cut off Iran’s uranium pathway to a nuclear weapon.

Iran removed the core of its Arak reactor and rendered it inoperable by filling it with concrete. This cut off the path by which Iran could have produced significant amounts of weapons grade plutonium. Now, the Arak reactor will be redesigned, in cooperation with a working group established under the JCPOA, ensuring that the reactor is used solely for peaceful purposes going forward. Read more here to see how the Obama administration punked the whole story and then read below. Has anyone asked Norway? They assisted.

The U.S. Has No Clue Where Iran’s 8.5 Tons Of Enriched Uranium Are

At a February 11, 2016 hearing before the U.S. House Foreign Affairs Committee, Amb. Mull acknowledged that Washington had lost track of the enriched uranium, which, he said, was now “on a Russian ship, in Russian custody, under Russian control” – that is, no longer under IAEA oversight.

Indeed, in response to Rep. Chris Smith’s (R-NJ) question at the hearing, “Do we have any on site accountability? Can we go and verify ourselves, or?” Amb. Mull replied: “We cannot.” Rep. Smith said: “We cannot. Who does?” to which Amb. Mull replied: “…Russia is responsible for maintaining access and controls.”

Rep. Smith then asked, “Where has it been put?” and Amb. Mull answered: “It has not been fully, according to our information it has not yet been decided where exactly Russia will put this.”

To Rep. Smith’s question “But where did it go? I mean it has to be somewhere,” Amb. Mull replied: “…I believe, if it has not arrived yet, it will very soon.”

In reply to Rep. Smith’s comment that “we are then trusting the Russians to say that they have it under their purview, that they are watching it? I mean they are so close to Iran, they have doubledealed us and especially the Middle East, the Syrians, I don’t know why we would trust them. Could you tell us where it is going?” Amb. Mull replied: “That is a Russian Government responsibility to decide where it goes. We do not have concerns about Russian custody of this material. What is important in this deal is will it go back to Iran? And I can guarantee there are sufficient controls in place that if one piece of dust of that material goes back into Iran we are going to be aware of it.”

Rep. Smith then asked, “But again, can the IAEA go to that ship and verify that it is there and follow it as it goes to its final resting place?” To this, Amb. Mull responded: “IAEA has different monitoring arrangements with each, each country in the world.” (As noted, Mull had stated that the uranium was now in “Russian custody, under Russian control” – that is, not under IAEA oversight.)

To Rep. Smith’s statement that “… it is not even in a place, it is not in any city that you say. It is not in any, it is not somewhere in Russia that we could say there it is. We don’t even know where it is,” Amb. Mull replied: “The IAEA verified the loading of all of this material…”

In response to Rep. Smith’s pointing out that “loading and where does it end up is very important,” Amb. Mull said, “That is the Russian Government’s responsibility to decide where it goes.”

Rep. Smith concluded, “That is a flaw, in my opinion.”

***

Watching that ship, the Mikhail Dudin….

Norwegian participation

Norway played a key role in the agreement by helping ensure that Iran’s enriched uranium was replaced by natural uranium. Oslo paid some $6 million for transporting 60 tons of natural uranium from Kazakhstan to Iran by plane.

Rune Bjåstad with the press office of the Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs says to the Independent Barents Observer that Norway only had inspectors following the transport of natural uranium to Iran, not the transport of material out.

“Regarding the enriched uranium transported out of Iran, there were no Norwegian representatives present. The control was done by a team of inspectors from the IAEA,” Bjåstad informs.

He says Norwegian representatives were in contact with the inspectors from IAEA who participated in the packing and sealing of the cargo that left Bushehr. The shipment from Iran to St. Petersburg is not paid with Norwegian money.

Voyage route across Scandinavian waters confirmed

Director of Norway’s Radiation Protection Authorities, Ole Harbitz, confirms in an SMS to the Independent Barents Observer that the cargo is en route to St. Petersburg.

It was U.S. Secretary of State, John Kerry, who in a statement on December 28 confirmed that the shipment takes place on board the vessel “Mikhail Dudin”, The New York Times reported.

Kerry said the cargo includes the uranium that is closest to bomb-grade quality, enriched to 20 percent purity.

The agreement, where Norway played a key role, can in the longer run indirectly open for increased transport of highly radioactive spent nuclear fuel along the coast of Norway to the Arctic.

With the deal ensuring no nuclear weapons projects can continue, Iran can again continue to expand its civilian nuclear energy program.

More spent nuclear fuel to sail outside Norway

Simultaneously as Norway in secret assisted with the transportation of natural uranium to Iran, Russia started to construct two more civilian nuclear reactors at existing Russian built Bushehr nuclear power plant. The plant will get uranium fuel from Russia.

That fuel will later have to be shipped back to Russia.

Currently, Murmansk on Russia’s Arctic Barents Sea coast is the port used to take back spent nuclear fuel arriving from other countries. Over the last three years, several shipments of spent nuclear fuel from Soviet built research reactors in Europe have been sailed back to Russia along the coast of Norway to Murmansk. Like in September 2014, when “Mikhail Dudin” secretly transported a load of highly enriched uranium from Poland to the Atomflot base north of Murmansk.

St. Petersburg is the port used when other kinds of radioactive material, like the enriched uranium from Iran, are imported back to Russia.

Back to Russia for reprocessing

Iran is not the only country where Russia’s state nuclear corporation Rosatom will built new nuclear reactors. Deals are signed or under negotiations with China, India and Vietnam. From China, spent nuclear fuel in return to Russia can be sent by railway, but all shipments from Iran, India and Vietnam will have to go by sea.

Rosatom is currently building 19 reactors abroad and has increased its foreign contracts by 60 percent over the last two years to $66,5 billion.

Uranium fuel is normally in the reactors for 3-4 years before being replaced. Then, the fuel will have to be cooled for some years in an on-site pool before it can be transported back to Russia for reprocessing.

The reason why Murmansk is used as import harbor for spent nuclear fuel is because of its suitable infrastructure for loading the special designed containers directly from vessels to railway wagons at Atomflot, the repair base for Russia’s fleet of civilian nuclear icebreakers. From Murmansk, the wagons take the uranium fuel to the Mayak plant north of Chelyabinsk in the South Urals where Russia has its reprocessing plant.

Anyone still trusting all of this years later? Anyone?