- 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
re: Obama Admin Lied; New Memos Reveal Uranium One Exports To "Europe And Asia" Via Canada
Posted on 11/3/17 at 11:36 am to Navytiger74
Posted on 11/3/17 at 11:36 am to Navytiger74
quote:
Nothing definitively illegal had been alleged so far, but this needs to be explained.
This is the most level-headed response I've seen on this board in a while.
That said, when you say, "nothing definitevely illegal had been alleged so far", I assume you are not counting the proven meeting with Bill/Putin, the proven money transfers to the Clinton Foundation, and the proven payment of $500,000 directly to Bill -- all occuring during Hillary's failure as SecState and ultimate approved by Obama based on Hillary's SecState department assurances that the deal was good for America?
I may be wrong, but I think we have Federal Laws which prevent government officials from taking bribes from foreign governments for payment of making US Policy.
This post was edited on 11/3/17 at 11:40 am
Posted on 11/3/17 at 11:37 am to Tridentds
quote:Uranium One cannot. They were allowed to be added as a client of a us company to ship some to Canada, 75% of which was sold to us clients. The rest required permits from the us to move, and each one was done legally.
What the frick are you talking about. Just about every single person interviews about Uranium One by CNN, MSNBC, etc... INCLUDING a segment with Chuck Todd on meet the Press said Uraniium was never exported.
There isn't any after 2014 because there is so little demand right now.
Posted on 11/3/17 at 11:37 am to Volkosoby
quote:
Obama admin lied
You could have just reported that water is wet.
Posted on 11/3/17 at 11:39 am to Volkosoby
Still trying to figure out what Obama accomplished in 8 years.
All I can come up with is he is the first black (half white), affirmative-action President, from Hawai'i, with a Kenyan dad, who spent his formative years in a madrasa somewhere in Indonesia, before smokin dope and doin coke, while getting Cs in college, and then somehow becoming the smartest, coolest President in history, because to say anything different would be RACIST!!!
(Please, no Obamacare arguments.)
Dude will ultimately be known as the David Dinkins of Presidents, IMO.
Pretty disappointing considering all the hype.
Just sayin...
All I can come up with is he is the first black (half white), affirmative-action President, from Hawai'i, with a Kenyan dad, who spent his formative years in a madrasa somewhere in Indonesia, before smokin dope and doin coke, while getting Cs in college, and then somehow becoming the smartest, coolest President in history, because to say anything different would be RACIST!!!
(Please, no Obamacare arguments.)
Dude will ultimately be known as the David Dinkins of Presidents, IMO.
Pretty disappointing considering all the hype.
Just sayin...
Posted on 11/3/17 at 11:42 am to Floating Change Up
quote:And that gives what we call the appearance of impropriety—which should be looked at closely. But it’s not clear at this point (at least to us) what role State/Clinton played in the NRC’s decision to issue the revised memo allowing the third-party transfers from 2012-2014.
That said, when you say, "nothing definitevely illegal had been alleged so far", I assume you are not counting the proven meeting with Bill/Putin, the proven money transfers to the Clinton Foundation, and the proven payment of $500,000 directly to Bill -- all occuring during Hillary's failure as SecState and ultimate approved by Obama based on Hillary's SecState department assurances that the deal was good for America?
I may be wrong, but I think we have Federal Laws which preventing government officials from taking bribes from foreign governments for payment of making US Policy.
Posted on 11/3/17 at 11:44 am to Navytiger74
quote:
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:
The New York Times’s examination of the Uranium One deal is based on dozens of interviews, as well as a review of public records and securities filings in Canada, Russia and the United States. Some of the connections between Uranium One and the Clinton Foundation were unearthed by Peter Schweizer, a former fellow at the right-leaning Hoover Institution and author of the forthcoming book “Clinton Cash.” Mr. Schweizer provided a preview of material in the book to The Times, which scrutinized his information and built upon it with its own reporting.
quote:
The path to a Russian acquisition of American uranium deposits began in 2005 in Kazakhstan, where the Canadian mining financier Frank Giustra orchestrated his first big uranium deal, with Mr. Clinton at his side.
quote:
Still, the company’s story was hardly front-page news in the United States — until early 2008, in the midst of Mrs. Clinton’s failed presidential campaign, when The Times published an article revealing the 2005 trip’s link to Mr. Giustra’s Kazakhstan mining deal. It also reported that several months later, Mr. Giustra had donated $31.3 million to Mr. Clinton’s foundation.
quote:
“We want more than a statement to the press,” Paul Clarke, a Uranium One executive vice president, told the embassy’s energy officer on June 10, the officer reported in a cable. “That is simply chitchat.” What the company needed, Mr. Clarke said, was official written confirmation that the licenses were valid. The American Embassy ultimately reported to the secretary of state, Mrs. Clinton. Though the Clarke cable was copied to her, it was given wide circulation, and it is unclear if she would have read it; the Clinton campaign did not address questions about the cable. What is clear is that the embassy acted, with the cables showing that the energy officer met with Kazakh officials to discuss the issue on June 10 and 11. Three days later, a wholly owned subsidiary of Rosatom completed a deal for 17 percent of Uranium One. And within a year, the Russian government substantially upped the ante, with a generous offer to shareholders that would give it a 51 percent controlling stake. But first, Uranium One had to get the American government to sign off on the deal.
quote:
“In order to export uranium from the United States, Uranium One Inc. or ARMZ would need to apply for and obtain a specific NRC license authorizing the export of uranium for use as reactor fuel,” the letter said.
LINK
Posted on 11/3/17 at 11:48 am to Volkosoby
If there’s anything illegal about this, Trump & Sessions should do something.
Otherwise, it’s just a nice distraction to dangle in front of Trumpkins, who apparently never tire of this administration doing absolutely nothing despite having full control of the government.
Otherwise, it’s just a nice distraction to dangle in front of Trumpkins, who apparently never tire of this administration doing absolutely nothing despite having full control of the government.
Posted on 11/3/17 at 11:48 am to mmcgrath
quote:
We knew this last week. Every ounce is tracked and every transfer outside of US required extra permits.
You guys are insane with this issue.
I don't usually bother to reply to your posts as it wouldn't be productive to go in circles with you.
But... it is worth replying to agree-- as others are suggesting-- that it's very hypocritical of you to say that Trump collusion should be investigated further while Uranium One should not be investigated further. Given the corruption on the front end of the deal, it's especially valid to have concerns that there might be corruption on the back end, to the point that some of the product might not have ended up where the permits suggest.
This is far more concerning than politicians on either side plotting against one another. News flash: they both plotted against each other. And there's more open proof of pro-Clinton factions having soiled hands re Russia.
Posted on 11/3/17 at 11:53 am to Volkosoby
Posted on 11/3/17 at 11:53 am to Navytiger74
With all due respect, surely you can see why many people on here and around the country are frustrated with the entire Russian collusion narrative can't you? With Trump/Russia there isn't even a specific allegation of a law being broken by the Trump cam pain itself. Manafort, at least to this point which is subject to change, is accused of crimes unrelated to the 2016 campaign itself It's still an investigation in search of an actual crime. With Hillary/Russia, you have allegations of quid quo pro/pay for play with millions of dollars from people tied to the Russian government giving the CF $145,000,000 during and after the approval of a controversial nuclear deal that Hillary/Obama was heavily involved with. Throw in the fact that the Mueller led FBI knew about bribery and racketeering leading up to tbe deal's approval and you have a scandal that if proven would dwarf any in modern American history. If Russian meddling in our government and our elections is truly as important to weed out as many Democrats say it is then surely you agree that the Uranium One deal should be investigated just as vigorously as the alleged Russian/Trump collusion should be. That's not even getting into the dossier which is just as serious as anything the Trump campaign is being looked at for or the Hillary email server/potenting obstruction of justice that was inexplicably glossed over by the FBI.
Is it really that unreasonable or irrational to think that Uranium One, the Trump dossier, and Clinton's email server should be investigated just as aggressively as potential Trump/Russia collusion?
Is it really that unreasonable or irrational to think that Uranium One, the Trump dossier, and Clinton's email server should be investigated just as aggressively as potential Trump/Russia collusion?
Posted on 11/3/17 at 11:56 am to mmcgrath
quote:
We knew this last week. Every ounce is tracked and every transfer outside of US required extra permits.
You guys are insane with this issue.
Don't disparage my messiah!
Posted on 11/3/17 at 12:14 pm to Volkosoby
Where's the left-wing dumbasses that claimed it was never exported? fricking clowns.
Popular
Back to top


1





