Started By
Message
locked post

Are Democrats OK with Clinton giving Russia 20 % of US Uranium?

Posted on 2/19/17 at 4:07 pm
Posted by ChexMix
Taste the Deliciousness
Member since Apr 2014
25047 posts
Posted on 2/19/17 at 4:07 pm
Seems I havent seen a single one on this site offer their opinion.
Posted by Seldom Seen
Member since Feb 2016
40255 posts
Posted on 2/19/17 at 4:09 pm to
Obama had no problem with Putin taking Crimea or stepping over his Syrian Redline.
Posted by BhamDore
Nashville
Member since Aug 2009
6289 posts
Posted on 2/19/17 at 4:10 pm to
Fake
Posted by berrycajun
Baton Rouge
Member since May 2016
6904 posts
Posted on 2/19/17 at 4:19 pm to
Immediately after pres trump's press conference, I saw CNN say that hills selling Russia our uranium was not the truth. The anchor tried to explain what really is the "truth" and I didn't understand his spin on it all. But I'm sure all the CNN viewers as now convinced that Hillary didn't sell uranium to russia.
Posted by berrycajun
Baton Rouge
Member since May 2016
6904 posts
Posted on 2/19/17 at 4:25 pm to
Here's an article Saying she didn't sell the Russians uranium. This was what CNN was spewing - a bunch of BS

LINK
Posted by FightinTigersDammit
Louisiana North
Member since Mar 2006
34715 posts
Posted on 2/19/17 at 4:26 pm to
Of course, they are.
Posted by JawjaTigah
Bizarro World
Member since Sep 2003
22502 posts
Posted on 2/19/17 at 4:31 pm to
quote:

Seems I havent seen a single one on this site offer their opinion.
No talking points have been delivered. Podesta has gotten a little behind.
This post was edited on 2/19/17 at 4:32 pm
Posted by Lsuchs
Member since Apr 2013
8073 posts
Posted on 2/19/17 at 4:39 pm to
Here's an article saying she did:

NYT(Pre Trump nomination)
quote:

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.

quote:

“Few could have imagined in the past that we would own 20 percent of U.S. reserves,” Mr. Kiriyenko told Mr. Putin
This post was edited on 2/19/17 at 4:41 pm
Posted by jeff5891
Member since Aug 2011
15761 posts
Posted on 2/19/17 at 4:41 pm to
quote:

There’s a grain of truth in this claim. Clinton’s State Department was one of nine government agencies to approve Russia’s acquisition of a company with U.S. uranium assets.
Posted by Lsuchs
Member since Apr 2013
8073 posts
Posted on 2/19/17 at 4:46 pm to
quote:

There’s a grain of truth in this claim

^ Left spin.

Could just have easily said
quote:

There is a grain of fallacy

-It's 20% if production capabilities, or reserves
This post was edited on 2/19/17 at 4:54 pm
Posted by Tiger Tracker
Austin,TX
Member since Nov 2015
7232 posts
Posted on 2/19/17 at 4:47 pm to
quote:

But the claim that Clinton gave 20 percent of America’s uranium to Russia is incorrect and clearly misleading. Trump is referring to Russia’s nuclear power agency purchasing a majority stake in a Toronto-based energy company between 2009 and 2013. The company had mines and land in a number of US states with huge uranium production capacity — a move the USState Department signed off on.


quote:

The mines, mills, and land the company holds in the US account for 20 percent of the US’s uranium production capacity, not actual produced uranium.

The State Department was one of nine federal agencies and a number of additional independent federal and state regulators that signed off on the deal.

President Obama, not Secretary Clinton, was the only person who could’ve vetoed the deal.

Since Russia doesn’t have the legal right to export uranium out of the US, its main goal was likely to gain access to the company’s uranium assets in Kazakhstan.

Crucially, the main national security concern was not about nuclear weapons proliferation, as Trump suggests, but actually ensuring the US doesn’t have to depend too much on uranium sources from abroad, as the US only makes about 20 percent of the uranium it needs. An advantage in making nuclear weapons wasn’t the main issue because, as PolitiFact notes, “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.”


LINK

All that said the whole clinton donor deal is shady as hell, but clinton did not give russia 20% of our uranium. That is fake news.
Posted by Lsuchs
Member since Apr 2013
8073 posts
Posted on 2/19/17 at 4:50 pm to
quote:

All that said the whole clinton donor deal is shady as hell, but clinton did not give russia 20% of our uranium. That is fake news.



Quote from Rosatoms chief executive, Sergei Kiriyenko, in an interview with Putin:
quote:

“Few could have imagined in the past that we would own 20 percent of U.S. reserves,” Mr. Kiriyenko told Mr. Putin.
This post was edited on 2/19/17 at 4:52 pm
Posted by AuburnTigers
Member since Aug 2013
6954 posts
Posted on 2/19/17 at 4:50 pm to
quote:


All that said the whole clinton donor deal is shady as hell, but clinton did not give russia 20% of our uranium. That is fake news.

Few could have imagined in the past that we would own 20 percent of U.S. reserves,” Mr. Kiriyenko told Mr. Putin
Posted by Kino74
Denham springs
Member since Nov 2013
5344 posts
Posted on 2/19/17 at 4:53 pm to
quote:

The mines, mills, and land the company holds in the US account for 20 percent of the US’s uranium production capacity, not actual produced uranium.


Glad to know that 20% our uranium production is now Russian owned. Lovely.



quote:

All that said the whole clinton donor deal is shady as hell, but clinton did not give russia 20% of our uranium. That is fake news.


It's a bit foolish to try sugar coating the fact 20% of production is now owned by a foreign power who not only has the most mineral rich country but is a nuclear power. Not a good thing to be doing and certainly more than just "shady."
Posted by bamarep
Member since Nov 2013
51807 posts
Posted on 2/19/17 at 4:58 pm to
They're too stupid to even know what this means.
Posted by RockyMtnTigerWDE
War Damn Eagle Dad!
Member since Oct 2010
105415 posts
Posted on 2/19/17 at 4:59 pm to
quote:

All that said the whole clinton donor deal is shady as hell



She was one of 9 to sign off on the deal true. The fact she received money to her foundation from the CEO of Uranium One during the acquisition process by the Russian Agency Rosatom tells you all you need to know.

Clintons held a lot of influence and if you think they had no influence over the other eight signing off on it, then I'm not sure what to tell you. I know it's fun to throw around "Fake News" these days, but this is not one story to use it on.
Posted by jeff5891
Member since Aug 2011
15761 posts
Posted on 2/19/17 at 5:01 pm to
quote:

Left spin.


Not when the opposition is blaming one person for the sale when it's really 9 agencies allowing a takeover of a company
Posted by RockyMtnTigerWDE
War Damn Eagle Dad!
Member since Oct 2010
105415 posts
Posted on 2/19/17 at 5:03 pm to
quote:

Not when the opposition is blaming one person for the sale when it's really 9 agencies allowing a takeover of a company


Did the other eight get paid off like Hillary and Bill did?
Posted by jeff5891
Member since Aug 2011
15761 posts
Posted on 2/19/17 at 5:05 pm to
What does that have to do with the grain of salt comment above?
This post was edited on 2/19/17 at 5:06 pm
Posted by Lsuchs
Member since Apr 2013
8073 posts
Posted on 2/19/17 at 5:08 pm to
quote:

Not when the opposition is blaming one person for the sale when it's really 9 agencies allowing a takeover of a company


So did she or did she not sell it? Did she or did she not receive money, and did they or did they not receive the uranium reserves?

Yes there is more to consider, but "A grain of truth" or "a grain of fallacy" is simply a spin determined by the bias of the given outlet.
This post was edited on 2/19/17 at 10:49 pm
first pageprev pagePage 1 of 4Next pagelast page

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookTwitterInstagram