PDA

View Full Version : Uranium One, Clinton Collusion Zero



Crepitus
10-29-2017, 08:49 AM
Uranium One, Clinton Collusion Zero. (http://www.cleveland.com/darcy/index.ssf/2017/10/trumps_clinton_collusion_claim.html)


A Clinton Foundation donor did sell his company to Canadian mining company Uranium One. When the donor sold the company, he divested his interest in it. And he did that well before Hillary Clinton became Secretary of State.

...


President Obama, the Clinton State department and nine other U.S. government agencies unanimously approved the sale, not knowing the FBI was investigating the Russian deal makers.

...


The FBI would later successfully prosecute the primary Russian official involved, for financial crimes, and they publicized those prosecutions with press releases. Which contradicts claims by Trump and others that they tried to cover up the investigation.

...


The multiple agencies involved in approving the deal also have said Clinton was never actively involved in approving the deal.

There is nothing there.

resister
10-29-2017, 10:38 AM
Yeah, selling 20% of our nations Uranium to a nuclear superpower, sounds like a great idea! Does anyone know where all that $ went?

barb012
10-29-2017, 12:11 PM
We should not allow any foreign nation to own any of our uranium period. There is no rational reason to approve this deal. Why would Russia want to own 20% of our uranium but cannot have any of it shipped to them? Why are some media outlets saying it is no big deal because our uranium is not that powerful? If it is no big deal, why are they not shipping it to them?

What are the facts about this uranium?

Tahuyaman
10-29-2017, 12:49 PM
The media is doing their best to dismiss this story. Some are even going so far as to saying it's an example of sound foreign policy.

Crepitus
10-29-2017, 12:50 PM
Yeah, selling 20% of our nations Uranium to a nuclear superpower, sounds like a great idea! Does anyone know where all that $ went?

There was no money.

Crepitus
10-29-2017, 12:52 PM
We should not allow any foreign nation to own any of our uranium period. There is no rational reason to approve this deal. Why would Russia want to own 20% of our uranium but cannot have any of it shipped to them? Why are some media outlets saying it is no big deal because our uranium is not that powerful? If it is no big deal, why are they not shipping it to them?

What are the facts about this uranium?

We allowed Canada to sell some of their US holdings to a Russian company. The uranium was already owned by an out of country company.

Crepitus
10-29-2017, 12:54 PM
The media is doing their best to dismiss this story. Some are even going so far as to saying it's an example of sound foreign policy.

The media is dismissive of this story because there is no story. There was no story when it was brought up during the campaign, there is no story now. This is nothing but another desperate attempt to shift attention away from Mueller's tightening noose.

resister
10-29-2017, 12:58 PM
There was no money.
So it was a "gift"? lol

Crepitus
10-29-2017, 01:04 PM
So it was a "gift"? lol

What gift?

resister
10-29-2017, 01:06 PM
There was no money.


So it was a "gift"? lol


What gift?
Huhh?

Crepitus
10-29-2017, 01:09 PM
Huhh?

There was no money, so what is this gift to which you refer?

MisterVeritis
10-29-2017, 01:09 PM
I think I will let this story percolate for a few days. I believe it will be far more interesting.
Meanwhile:Imagine paying 12 million dollars for poorly done fiction. The Clinton-DNC fiction was far more lucrative than anything I ever published.

Crepitus
10-29-2017, 01:12 PM
I think I will let this story percolate for a few days. I believe it will be far more interesting.
Meanwhile:Imagine paying 12 million dollars for poorly done fiction. The Clinton-DNC fiction was far more lucrative than anything I ever published.

Story has been around for well over a year, a few more days won't make it actually mean anything.

Common Sense
10-29-2017, 01:15 PM
It's amazing to watch some of you slurp up this painfully obvious distractionary tactic.

Clearly some are easily manipulated.

I know this won't get through to the cultists here...but I had to point and laugh.

MisterVeritis
10-29-2017, 01:21 PM
Story has been around for well over a year, a few more days won't make it actually mean anything.
I disagree. I am sure you will continue to nay-say.

MisterVeritis
10-29-2017, 01:22 PM
It's amazing to watch some of you slurp up this painfully obvious distractionary tactic.
Clearly some are easily manipulated.
I know this won't get through to the cultists here...but I had to point and laugh.
And yet you believe the Russia-Trump collusion fiction.

Fascinating.

Common Sense
10-29-2017, 01:24 PM
And yet you believe the Russia-Trump collusion fiction.

Fascinating.

I've never stated that there is proof of collusion between Trump and Russia.

Tahuyaman
10-29-2017, 01:36 PM
The media is dismissive of this story because there is no story. There was no story when it was brought up during the campaign, there is no story now. This is nothing but another desperate attempt to shift attention away from Mueller's tightening noose.

Left wing partisan hacks will justify, condone and even celebrate corruption on their side. Even when that corruption puts our national security at risk.

Mueller is tightening the rope around his own neck. He's part of the corruption. He's been exposed.

Crepitus
10-29-2017, 02:02 PM
Left wing partisan hacks will justify, condone and even celebrate corruption on their side. Even when that corruption puts our national security at risk.

Mueller is tightening the rope around his own neck. He's part of the corruption. He's been exposed.

Except that there isn't corruption in this case.


Plus I'm pretty sure it isn't a democrat that's been indicted.

The Xl
10-29-2017, 02:05 PM
It's amazing to watch some of you slurp up this painfully obvious distractionary tactic.

Clearly some are easily manipulated.

I know this won't get through to the cultists here...but I had to point and laugh.

Your post applies entirely to you. Your lack of self awareness is quite astonishing.

MisterVeritis
10-29-2017, 02:07 PM
I've never stated that there is proof of collusion between Trump and Russia.
Cool. Then you do not believe the Russia-Trump collusion fiction. Noted.

Tahuyaman
10-29-2017, 02:07 PM
Except that there isn't corruption in this case.


Plus I'm pretty sure it isn't a democrat that's been indicted.

I can understand why you refuse to see it. It's possibly the most brazen corruption ever. It's inconceivable that this level of corruption can exist.

Tahuyaman
10-29-2017, 02:10 PM
I've never stated that there is proof of collusion between Trump and Russia.

Thats because you can't. The Trump / Russia collusion thing was an invention designed to provide cover for the actual corrupt activity.

Crepitus
10-29-2017, 02:10 PM
I can understand why you refuse to see it. It's possibly the most brazen corruption ever. It's inconceivable that this level of corruption can exist.

Please point out the corruption that didn't come to light the first several times this was brought up.

Tahuyaman
10-29-2017, 02:12 PM
Please point out the corruption that didn't come to light the first several times this was brought up.

Corruption is excused because the cover-up works well for a while?

Crepitus
10-29-2017, 02:13 PM
Corruption is excused because the cover-up works well for a while?

I notice you can't point to any.......

Crepitus
10-29-2017, 02:14 PM
Thats because you can't. The Trump / Russia collusion thing was an invention designed to provide cover for the actual corrupt activity.


Corruption is excused because the cover-up works well for a while?

Well? Is it?

Tahuyaman
10-29-2017, 02:15 PM
The ability of a hack to excuse corruption on their side is an amazing thing.

Crepitus
10-29-2017, 02:16 PM
The ability of a hack to excuse corruption on their side is an amazing thing.

Still can't find any huh.

Everyone please also note the lack of a quote, thus the lack of a quote notification, so maybe I won't notice (what he hopes is) his final post on the subject.

Tahuyaman
10-29-2017, 02:18 PM
A Democrat can accept close to two hundred million dollars to influence a foreign policy decision and it's just shrugged off.

Crepitus
10-29-2017, 02:19 PM
A Democrat can accept close to two hundred million dollars to influence a foreign policy decision and it's just shrugged off.

Please show where that happened.

Tahuyaman
10-29-2017, 02:45 PM
Isn't it amazing how a partisan hack can ignore, dismiss or deny documented incidents of blatant corruption? It's beyond amazing. It's inexplicable. They should be embarrassed, but I'm guessing that's impossible.

resister
10-29-2017, 03:25 PM
I notice you can't point to any.......
^ Russia collusion^

* but still beats the drum, religiously *

Tahuyaman
10-29-2017, 03:35 PM
How many millions did Hillary Clinton accept into the Clinton slush fund to influence policy? How many of those foreign sourced millions went into her presidential campaign? How many ended up in the Clinton's personal bank account?

There is no level of corruption and illegal conduct a left winger will not dismiss when a Clinton is involved.

Crepitus
10-29-2017, 03:57 PM
^ Russia collusion^

* but still beats the drum, religiously *

Criminal indictment friday. Remember?

resister
10-29-2017, 03:59 PM
Criminal indictment friday. Remember?
Who what? This proves that Trump colluded, how exactly?

Agent Zero
10-29-2017, 05:26 PM
Yeah, selling 20% of our nations Uranium to a nuclear superpower, sounds like a great idea! Does anyone know where all that $ went?
What an ignorant post.

We should not allow any foreign nation to own any of our uranium period. There is no rational reason to approve this deal. Why would Russia want to own 20% of our uranium but cannot have any of it shipped to them? Why are some media outlets saying it is no big deal because our uranium is not that powerful? If it is no big deal, why are they not shipping it to them?

What are the facts about this uranium?
Same with yours.

Would you guys believe a conservative web site telling you how wrong you are or will you continue believing liars and conspiracy theorists?

Here's your facts: Try comprehending them and then get back to me.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2017/10/27/claims-of-clinton-russia-uranium-scandal-are-a-real-empty-barrel/#3d49a3c17b55

Hillary Clinton is back in the news. But the reason is a big nothing burger.
In a 2015 book, Breitbart News editor Peter Schweizer claimed that donations to the Clinton Foundation were behind the Obama administration’s approval of the 2010 sale of a Canadian mining company to a Russian state-controlled firm. The sale gave Russia control of a large swath of American uranium interests.
And by large, we really mean small.
The allegations are back in the news after a report in The Hill last week (http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/355749-fbi-uncovered-russian-bribery-plot-before-obama-administration) claimed, citing anonymous sources, that at the time U.S. officials were weighing whether to approve the deal, the FBI was investigating evidence of bribery, kickbacks, extortion and money laundering (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2017/oct/24/what-you-need-know-about-hillary-clinton-and-urani/) by Russian nuclear industry officials designed to help further Russian President Vladimir Putin's commercial nuclear ambitions inside the United States.
The Hill article was seized on by right-wing media ― and the President ― as evidence backing up a conspiracy theory that they've pushed amid the investigations into Russia's efforts to swing the presidential election to Donald Trump. The real collusion scandal, they claim, involves Russia and Hillary Clinton. The implication of the piece is that the FBI investigation should have been known to those who approved the deal in question.
Clinton's State Department and several government agencies on the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States unanimously approved the 2010 partial sale of Canadian mining company Uranium One to the Russian nuclear giant Rosatom, supposedly giving Moscow control of more than 20% of America’s uranium supply.
Obama and Clinton colluding to hand over 20% America’s strategic uranium to the Russians? On cue, Fox News gabber Sean Hannity said this could be 'the biggest scandal' in American history.

But here's the thing ― by 20%, we really mean almost zero.
Those U.S. facilities obtained by Russia produce almost nothing. The uranium deposits are of relatively poor grade and are too costly to compete on the uranium market. But the facilities do have good milling capacity to process ore, if anyone gives it to them, which hasn’t happened in about 10 years. Theoretically, they could process 20% of our ore, but that will never happen. Uranium One couldn’t give these facilities away.
Besides, Russia can’t export any uranium they produce in the U.S. They do not possess a Nuclear Regulatory Commission export license.
The real reason Russia wanted this deal was to give Rosatom’s subsidiary Uranium One's very profitable uranium mines in Kazakhstan ― the single largest producer of commercial uranium in the world.
Then, in 2011, the administration approved a Rosatom subsidiary to sell commercial uranium to U.S. nuclear power plants in partnership with the U.S. Enrichment Corporation. Up until then, Russia had been limited to selling our nuclear power plants uranium reprocessed from old Soviet nuclear weapons under the 1990s Megatons to Megawatts peace program. Nothing strange here, either. Finally, in 2013, Russia obtained 100% interest in Uranium One.
Rather than take action against this deal, the Department of Justice just continued investigating the matter for years, essentially leaving the American public, Congress, the secretary of state and the administration in the dark about more Russian meddling in the United States, this time involving nuclear.
Candidate Trump jumped on this issue during the 2016 campaign trail last year, but as secretary of state, Clinton was not involved in the committee review and never intervened on the matter, and there were several other agencies involved in the recommendation.
It is still not clear why no one at the FBI alerted the Obama administration to the Russian kickbacks, extortion threats and money laundering before these decisions were made. One theory is that the United States was still seeking to 'reset' its relationship with Russia (https://qz.com/389829/breaking-down-the-russian-uranium-deal-hanging-over-hillary-clintons-campaign/) and was also trying to get Putin on board with our Iran nuclear deal. But in the end, this Russian deal just wasn’t that important and had no national security ramifications.
As Jeffrey Lewis, a nuclear nonproliferation expert at the Middlebury Institute, described it, Russia’s purchase of the company 'had as much of an impact on national security as it would have if they set the money on fire. That’s probably why (all the U.S. agencies involved) approved it.'
The key to this issue’s resurgence this week is that Hillary Clinton was secretary of state at the time, Bill Clinton was getting lucrative speaking fees in Russia, and Russian money was finding its way to the Clinton Foundation, although the amount turns out to be small (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2017/oct/24/what-you-need-know-about-hillary-clinton-and-urani/). However, even if there was no wrongdoing on the part of the administration or the Clintons (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/10/26/the-facts-behind-trumps-repeated-claim-about-hillary-clintons-role-in-the-russian-uranium-deal/?utm_term=.260a8a42e5ff), and no national security reason for anyone to oppose this deal, some still want to make it another Benghazi.As a scandal, this issue lacks relevance since Clinton is now a private citizen and Russian meddling in our 2016 election has become a bigger issue. In fact, all the attention now being paid to the uranium deal seems to have more to do with Robert Mueller’s present investigation (http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/355749-fbi-uncovered-russian-bribery-plot-before-obama-administration) of Russian collusion than with Clinton.
The political ramifications aside, what is the reality of our uranium supplies, and how much does Russian meddling affect them?
Short answer – not at all.

resister
10-29-2017, 07:55 PM
What an ignorant post.

Same with yours.

Would you guys believe a conservative web site telling you how wrong you are or will you continue believing liars and conspiracy theorists?

Here's your facts: Try comprehending them and then get back to me.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2017/10/27/claims-of-clinton-russia-uranium-scandal-are-a-real-empty-barrel/#3d49a3c17b55

Nice cut and paste, I can find one just like it that makes a 180, in what Universe should we sell RUSSIA

20% of our Uranium?

You guys are too funny, Russia is so bad, right?:rollseyes:

Agent Zero
10-29-2017, 11:59 PM
Nice cut and paste, I can find one just like it that makes a 180, in what Universe should we sell RUSSIA

20% of our Uranium?

You guys are too funny, Russia is so bad, right?:rollseyes:


What an ignorant post. I c/p'd the whole thing because I knew you and Tally wouldn't go to the link and read it.

Now go back into your hole and continue digging. Be sure to get a permit, though You're breaking the law. Again.

resister
10-30-2017, 12:23 AM
Makes it personal, but cant give valid answer...:rollseyes:

resister
10-30-2017, 12:24 AM
What an ignorant post. I c/p'd the whole thing because I knew you and Tally wouldn't go to the link and read it.

Now go back into your hole and continue digging. Be sure to get a permit, though You're breaking the law. Again.

resister
10-30-2017, 12:28 AM
What an ignorant post. I c/p'd the whole thing because I knew you and Tally wouldn't go to the link and read it.

Now go back into your hole and continue digging. Be sure to get a permit, though You're breaking the law. Again.
Care to address my point, or just continue your record of personal attacks? It would be great if you could just address the post, I am not the subject, Thanks A bunch! Peace and love!

Captdon
10-30-2017, 09:53 AM
The media is dismissive of this story because there is no story. There was no story when it was brought up during the campaign, there is no story now. This is nothing but another desperate attempt to shift attention away from Mueller's tightening noose.

Mueller has nothing on trump and that's all I care about.

Collusion isn't a crime. There has to be an illegal conspiracy and I have yet to see one about anyone. Clinton is alley trash but collusion still isn't a crime.

Crepitus
10-30-2017, 10:16 AM
Mueller has nothing on trump and that's all I care about.

Collusion isn't a crime. There has to be an illegal conspiracy and I have yet to see one about anyone. Clinton is alley trash but collusion still isn't a crime.

Conspiracy is. Obstruction of justice is. Lying to the FBI is. I'm sure Robert Mueller has a longer list than I do.