Started By
Message

re: Let's end a talking Point: Just WHO was on the CFIUS that approved uranium ONE

Posted on 10/31/17 at 3:18 pm to
Posted by Bass Tiger
Member since Oct 2014
46726 posts
Posted on 10/31/17 at 3:18 pm to
quote:

Let's end a talking Point: Just WHO was on the CFIUS that approved uranium ONE by Cpt


Literally the “ALL STARS” of Prog Flith! Solid up vote!
Posted by boosiebadazz
Member since Feb 2008
80578 posts
Posted on 10/31/17 at 3:19 pm to
Glad you brought this to the board.

So are you now alleging a 9-person conspiracy?

Posted by CptBengal
BR Baby
Member since Dec 2007
71661 posts
Posted on 10/31/17 at 3:20 pm to
quote:

Every member of the CFIUS board COULD block the sale with veto power as well as the Pres



WRONG.

go read the CFIUS website.
Posted by CptBengal
BR Baby
Member since Dec 2007
71661 posts
Posted on 10/31/17 at 3:21 pm to
I'm alleging your talking point is bullsgit.

Hillary gets kickbacks and they ALL knew whose turn it was next.

I see I've touched a nerve. Is that why yesterday you kept saying "committee"? Didn't like these optics?
Posted by Bass Tiger
Member since Oct 2014
46726 posts
Posted on 10/31/17 at 3:25 pm to
quote:

Timmy "Whoops I forgot about all of those unpaid taxes, how about hundred of billions in bailout money" Geithner


Geithner, the architect of “too big to fail”, toss on some Bernanke for good measure. Lol!

WE HAVE TO GIVE’M (too big to fail) THE MONEY OR THE GLOBAL ECONOMY WILL COLLAPSE AND WE’LL ALL DIE!
Posted by boosiebadazz
Member since Feb 2008
80578 posts
Posted on 10/31/17 at 3:25 pm to
I used the word committee because it is literally called the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States. However, I am glad you all are moving away from the lie that Hillary herself held unilateral control over whether the deal was approved or not. That's progress.

Do you want to talk about export licenses next?
Posted by boosiebadazz
Member since Feb 2008
80578 posts
Posted on 10/31/17 at 3:30 pm to
quote:

WRONG.

go read the CFIUS website.


CFIUS can issue an order blocking the sale.
Posted by culsutiger
Member since Apr 2012
652 posts
Posted on 10/31/17 at 3:31 pm to
(no message)
This post was edited on 2/14/18 at 11:51 pm
Posted by lctiger
Member since Oct 2003
3313 posts
Posted on 10/31/17 at 3:34 pm to
Another burning question I've had, other than the CF getting millions, what did the Russians pay to buy the uranium from the Canadian company, did the USA get anything from this sale?
Posted by Gaspergou202
Metairie, LA
Member since Jun 2016
13519 posts
Posted on 10/31/17 at 3:35 pm to
quote:

However, I am glad you all are moving away from the lie that Hillary herself held unilateral control over whether the deal was approved or not.

All Hillary had to do to cash in on the Russian/Clinton Crime Family Collusion uranium scheme was to get Obama to agree. She did! The rest just toed the line.

But of course everyone realizes this.
Posted by boosiebadazz
Member since Feb 2008
80578 posts
Posted on 10/31/17 at 3:35 pm to
We will in a second, but I'd like to flesh out some more on CFIUS.

quote:

CFIUS is an interagency committee authorized by statute[1] to review investments that could result in foreign control of a U.S. business that impacts U.S. national security. Parties to a transaction potentially subject to CFIUS review generally file a voluntary Notice. CFIUS takes 30 days to review the Notice, then conducts an additional 45-day investigation if necessary. The parties to the transaction must cooperate with CFIUS to conclude the investigation and institute any mitigation measures necessary to protect U.S. national security. If the parties and CFIUS cannot agree or adequate mitigation measures cannot be instituted, the Notice may be withdrawn and the transaction reworked or abandoned, or CFIUS may recommend to the President that the transaction be blocked. Only four transactions have been blocked or unwound by Presidential fiat in the history of CFIUS – two of those within the last year by Presidents Obama and Trump.
Posted by boosiebadazz
Member since Feb 2008
80578 posts
Posted on 10/31/17 at 3:38 pm to
quote:

Based on what is currently in the public record, little, if anything about the allegation is plausible. In this post, I want to summarize the legal context and known facts regarding the transfer and put the allegations of impropriety in context. (I focus exclusively on the transfer and the U.S. government's approval of it. I am not, in this post, considering the evidence—such as it is—of donations to the Clinton Foundation. My reasoning is simple: if there is no "quo" to be given, the question of a "quid" is moot.)


LINK
Posted by boosiebadazz
Member since Feb 2008
80578 posts
Posted on 10/31/17 at 3:40 pm to
quote:

To secure approval from CFIUS, Rosatom is reported to have promised to retain the Uranium One corporate management and corporate structure, not breaking up the company. In addition, the mining licenses would remain with U.S. subsidiaries controlled by U.S. persons. In addition, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission reviewed the transaction and gave its approval (emphasis added below):

NRC’s review of the transfer of control request determined that the U.S. subsidiaries will remain the licensees, will remain qualified to conduct the uranium recovery operations, and will continue to have the equipment, facilities, and procedures necessary to protect public health and safety and to minimize danger to life or property. The review also determined that the licensees will maintain adequate financial surety for eventual decommissioning of the sites. Neither Uranium One nor ARMZ holds an NRC export license, so no uranium produced at either facility may be exported.

By all reports, there was little controversy over the transaction (which occurred during President Obama's "reset" with Russia). Still, it is fair to say that the degree of scrutiny of this transaction seems less than the 2009 proposed purchase of a gold mine by Chinese interests—which was ultimately withdrawn in light of CFIUS objections.


Oh my, the Russians are buying off the Nuclear Regulatory Commission as well!
Posted by culsutiger
Member since Apr 2012
652 posts
Posted on 10/31/17 at 3:40 pm to
(no message)
This post was edited on 2/14/18 at 11:51 pm
Posted by boosiebadazz
Member since Feb 2008
80578 posts
Posted on 10/31/17 at 3:40 pm to
quote:

The structure of CFIUS is such that no one agency can control the outcome of the consideration. Here it appears that the entire committee and the NRC were all satisfied with the mitigation put in place. It is a very far stretch to lay this result at State's doorstep—the vigorous objection of any of the security-minded agencies would likely have derailed the transaction, but none, evidently was forthcoming. I have no doubt that State favored the sale—but that is likely the position it would take today under Secretary Rex Tillerson and was surely the position it would have taken under Secretaries Colin Powell, Condoleeza Rice and John Kerry. State has a strong institutional bias in favor of accommodating foreign investment in the United States. Here, it seems clear that the Pentagon and DHS did not object either.
Posted by boosiebadazz
Member since Feb 2008
80578 posts
Posted on 10/31/17 at 3:42 pm to
Here's your leg to stand on:

quote:

Uranium One's licenses are for mining and extraction, not for export. This makes the claim that we "gave away" 20% of America's uranium fairly hyperbolic. The expectation, in light of the NRC's assessment, would have been that the uranium mined would be marketed in America (with the profits going to Russia).
It is, however, true, that the mining rights to 20% of American uranium are now held by a Russian state agency. That is troubling (and had it been me, I would have tried to generate opposition to the sale). It isn't a "give away," but it is the case that Rusatom has de jure and de facto legal rights that can be exercised to limit production if it wishes to do so.


So it was Obama that acted foolishly in allowing the Russians to buy the rights to 20% of the uranium, but where does the Clinton cash come into play?
This post was edited on 10/31/17 at 3:43 pm
Posted by culsutiger
Member since Apr 2012
652 posts
Posted on 10/31/17 at 3:42 pm to
(no message)
This post was edited on 2/14/18 at 11:50 pm
Posted by boosiebadazz
Member since Feb 2008
80578 posts
Posted on 10/31/17 at 3:44 pm to
How does Mr. Christensen know where it was going? And if that is the case, that seems like a failure on the enforcement end, not the regulatory end. Customs? DHS?
Posted by culsutiger
Member since Apr 2012
652 posts
Posted on 10/31/17 at 3:48 pm to
(no message)
This post was edited on 2/14/18 at 11:50 pm
Posted by CptBengal
BR Baby
Member since Dec 2007
71661 posts
Posted on 10/31/17 at 3:52 pm to
quote:

WRONG.

go read the CFIUS website.


CFIUS can issue an order blocking the sale.



lol, WRONG again. Seriously, let's watch you boom yourself in 2 posts:

quote:

CFIUS may recommend to the President that the transaction be blocked. Only four transactions have been blocked or unwound by Presidential fiat in the history of CFIUS – two of those within the last year by Presidents Obama and Trump.
LINK

fricking imbecile.

Defend your pr0g filth aristocrats. Defend their criminality! You're winning!
first pageprev pagePage 2 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