- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Yes, Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation
Posted on 2/21/17 at 7:38 am
Posted on 2/21/17 at 7:38 am
“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.”
Has Vox or POLITIFACT analyzed this quote?
Or just Trump’s wild accusations?
The next paragraph in this New York Times piece states “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.”
Vox, POLITIFACT, and others haven’t commented on the two quotes above and have only pontificated against President Trump’s awkwardly worded claims.
Hillary Clinton didn’t “give up” 20% of U.S. uranium to Russia, but Uranium One donations to the Clinton Foundation might have influenced the State Department and Obama’s administration to approve the deal.
Was it merely coincidence that Uranium One officials were Clinton Foundation donors, or is there legitimate conflict of interest?
Also, did the FBI tape Bill Clinton’s speech at a Moscow bank?
There’s absolutely no way for Vox or any other Clinton public relations firm to spin the fact Bill Clinton received $500,000 from a Moscow bank with ties to the Kremlin.
As with all Clinton scandals, the entire story is far more complicated (with defenders focusing on semantics and plausible deniability more than possible foul play), and leads to a major conflict of interest; especially in today’s neo-McCarthy Democratic Party.
Frist, Clinton didn’t even intentionally use a private server, so she didn’t “give up” 20% of U.S. uranium all by herself
Furthermore, three FBI field offices wanted to investigate the Clinton Foundation. The Clinton Foundation has been the subject of quid pro quo controversies, from an AP report to weapons deals. Last year’s AP Report states millions in donations correlated with access to America’s Secretary of State:
POLITIFACT states “The State Department did approve the Uranium One deal, but it didn’t act unilaterally.”
And… this is supposed to be a good thing?
The New York Times states “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.”
Vox recently called Trump a Russian stooge, yet it was Clinton’s State Department that approved a deal bringing “Mr. Putin closer to his goal of controlling much of the global uranium supply chain.”
President Obama’s administration approved a uranium deal that motivated Pravda to write “Russian Nuclear Energy Conquers the World.”
If Putin is America’s great adversary, why did Clinton’s State Department and eight other agencies approve the deal?
Why didn’t President Obama veto the deal?
Sure, Hillary Clinton didn’t “give up” 20% of U.S. uranium.
Trump is wrong about Clinton “giving” the uranium to Putin.
Also, it’s 20% of U.S. uranium capacity, that’s true.
There, feel better now DNC?
You shouldn’t if you think Russia influenced the election and fear the implications of General Flynn’s phone calls, or Trump’s contacts with Russia.
I highlight the impact of the Obama administration’s uranium deal with Russia in the following segment on H. A. Goodman YouTube:
Is it America’s national interest to have “Mr. Putin closer to his goal of controlling much of the global uranium supply chain”?
In the McCarthy era atmosphere of today’s Democratic Party, what if Trump approved the sale of 20% of U.S. uranium capacity to Russia, as his foundation received millions?
LINK
Has Vox or POLITIFACT analyzed this quote?
Or just Trump’s wild accusations?
The next paragraph in this New York Times piece states “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.”
Vox, POLITIFACT, and others haven’t commented on the two quotes above and have only pontificated against President Trump’s awkwardly worded claims.
Hillary Clinton didn’t “give up” 20% of U.S. uranium to Russia, but Uranium One donations to the Clinton Foundation might have influenced the State Department and Obama’s administration to approve the deal.
Was it merely coincidence that Uranium One officials were Clinton Foundation donors, or is there legitimate conflict of interest?
Also, did the FBI tape Bill Clinton’s speech at a Moscow bank?
There’s absolutely no way for Vox or any other Clinton public relations firm to spin the fact Bill Clinton received $500,000 from a Moscow bank with ties to the Kremlin.
As with all Clinton scandals, the entire story is far more complicated (with defenders focusing on semantics and plausible deniability more than possible foul play), and leads to a major conflict of interest; especially in today’s neo-McCarthy Democratic Party.
Frist, Clinton didn’t even intentionally use a private server, so she didn’t “give up” 20% of U.S. uranium all by herself
Furthermore, three FBI field offices wanted to investigate the Clinton Foundation. The Clinton Foundation has been the subject of quid pro quo controversies, from an AP report to weapons deals. Last year’s AP Report states millions in donations correlated with access to America’s Secretary of State:
POLITIFACT states “The State Department did approve the Uranium One deal, but it didn’t act unilaterally.”
And… this is supposed to be a good thing?
The New York Times states “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.”
Vox recently called Trump a Russian stooge, yet it was Clinton’s State Department that approved a deal bringing “Mr. Putin closer to his goal of controlling much of the global uranium supply chain.”
President Obama’s administration approved a uranium deal that motivated Pravda to write “Russian Nuclear Energy Conquers the World.”
If Putin is America’s great adversary, why did Clinton’s State Department and eight other agencies approve the deal?
Why didn’t President Obama veto the deal?
Sure, Hillary Clinton didn’t “give up” 20% of U.S. uranium.
Trump is wrong about Clinton “giving” the uranium to Putin.
Also, it’s 20% of U.S. uranium capacity, that’s true.
There, feel better now DNC?
You shouldn’t if you think Russia influenced the election and fear the implications of General Flynn’s phone calls, or Trump’s contacts with Russia.
I highlight the impact of the Obama administration’s uranium deal with Russia in the following segment on H. A. Goodman YouTube:
Is it America’s national interest to have “Mr. Putin closer to his goal of controlling much of the global uranium supply chain”?
In the McCarthy era atmosphere of today’s Democratic Party, what if Trump approved the sale of 20% of U.S. uranium capacity to Russia, as his foundation received millions?
LINK
Posted on 2/21/17 at 7:40 am to Jbird
They don't care bruh.
They KNOW their side is crooked as a mf and they truly don't care.
Sad times indeed.
They KNOW their side is crooked as a mf and they truly don't care.
Sad times indeed.
Posted on 2/21/17 at 7:44 am to Jbird
Is Uranium One the new Benghazi for some of you?
We aren't going to run out of Uranium and none of the Uranium that was transferred can be exported out of the US.
We aren't going to run out of Uranium and none of the Uranium that was transferred can be exported out of the US.
Posted on 2/21/17 at 7:44 am to Jbird
Liberals tell me all that's irrelevant now cause she's not the President. I shouldn't make comparisons to their complaints about Trump because she's not it office, so anything she did in the past doesn't matter.
Posted on 2/21/17 at 7:46 am to Jbird
I'm so over Hillary
This post was edited on 2/21/17 at 7:48 am
Posted on 2/21/17 at 7:46 am to mmcgrath
quote:
We aren't going to run out of Uranium and none of the Uranium that was transferred can be exported out of the US.
So why would the Russians buy it then?
Posted on 2/21/17 at 7:48 am to Homesick Tiger
quote:Because they wanted the Uranium in Kazakhstan.
So why would the Russians buy it then?
Posted on 2/21/17 at 7:48 am to mmcgrath
quote:
mmcgrath
stopped reading
Posted on 2/21/17 at 7:55 am to mmcgrath
quote:
We aren't going to run out of Uranium and none of the Uranium that was transferred can be exported out of the US.
The point is that the Clinton's were dealing illegally with Moscow on trade deals and receiving funds for their illegal deals. You know, all those things that Trump would have been crucified for?
The best the Liberals can come up with in response is "well she isn't the president!!" despite the fact that she was their chosen lord and savior.
Posted on 2/21/17 at 8:12 am to Jbird
quote:
POLITIFACT, and others haven’t commented on the two quotes above and have only pontificated against President Trump’s awkwardly worded claims.
Politifact most certainly has. Why you lying?
Posted on 2/21/17 at 8:15 am to SidewalkDawg
quote:What trade deals, and what deals with Moscow?
The point is that the Clinton's were dealing illegally with Moscow on trade deals and receiving funds for their illegal deals. You know, all those things that Trump would have been crucified for?
Trump is the only one in hot water for self dealing with his charity.
Posted on 2/21/17 at 8:16 am to jeff5891
quote:Isn't my comment.
Politifact most certainly has. Why you lying?
Posted on 2/21/17 at 8:35 am to Jbird
Do you know why we the quote function on here?
Posted on 2/21/17 at 8:41 am to mmcgrath
quote:
What trade deals, and what deals with Moscow?
Dude, did you even read OP:
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.”
Do you think it was a coincidence that while she was SOS, this occurred?
Posted on 2/21/17 at 8:57 am to SidewalkDawg
quote:Uranium One isn't a "trade deal". And the overall accusation in this thread is that she made a deal with the Canadian company's former owner to allow the sale of a company that he no longer had an interest in.
Dude, did you even read OP:
There is nothing wrong with allowing the transfer of ownership to go through. It was owned by a private company before and still counts as our Uranium reserve.
Posted on 2/21/17 at 8:58 am to Jbird
Thank god that disgusting crooked hag didn't win.
Posted on 2/21/17 at 8:59 am to jeff5891
quote:Yes and I know how to go to a link.
Do you know why we the quote function on here?
Posted on 2/21/17 at 9:14 am to mmcgrath
quote:
There is nothing wrong with allowing the transfer of ownership to go through. It was owned by a private company before and still counts as our Uranium reserve.
And you spout this knowing it went to Putin while the Clinton's "coincidentally" received $500,000 from his cronies in Mother Russia.
If Trump was in on such a deal you'd be so far up his arse it would look like he had shoes in his drawers.
You can spin semantics however you like - it isn't her turn.
This post was edited on 2/21/17 at 9:38 am
Posted on 2/21/17 at 9:23 am to jeff5891
quote:
Do you know why we the quote function on here?
Yep, for the same reason we don't leave a word out of a post when criticizing others about posting.
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News