- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- 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: Ok So what about Uranium One fiasco ?
Posted on 10/30/17 at 6:05 pm to boosiebadazz
Posted on 10/30/17 at 6:05 pm to boosiebadazz
quote:
Was it Hillary's unilateral decision to make?
Yes
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.
1
Posted on 10/30/17 at 6:06 pm to TigerDrive
so you mean the 9 member panel of board members and their staff overseen by the Pentagon, the Treasury and the Energy Department who originally vetted the deal along with the FBI, those parties?
Posted on 10/30/17 at 6:06 pm to League Champs
Wait, are you really this misinformed or are you just hoping to keep this narrative alive?
Posted on 10/30/17 at 6:07 pm to Cruiserhog
17 Intelligence agencies as well! 
Posted on 10/30/17 at 6:10 pm to boosiebadazz
quote:
Wait, are you really this misinformed or are you just hoping to keep this narrative alive?
Both. This all came from the Clinton Cash book, written by a guy that was(maybe still is) an editor at Breitbart.
Posted on 10/30/17 at 6:13 pm to boosiebadazz
quote:
Walk me through the criminal wrongdoing again
It's Killary! What more do you need?!
Posted on 10/30/17 at 6:15 pm to The Spleen
He literally just posted something about the American embassy reporting to the Secretary of State as evidence of his quid pro quo.
It’s so ignorant of the truth that I’ve got to think it’s on purpose with the hopes that others will read it and just assume that’s what happened. Dangerous fake news territory here.
It’s so ignorant of the truth that I’ve got to think it’s on purpose with the hopes that others will read it and just assume that’s what happened. Dangerous fake news territory here.
Posted on 10/30/17 at 6:17 pm to boosiebadazz
No buying any Clinton influence here...no chance
Posted on 10/30/17 at 6:18 pm to boosiebadazz
quote:
boosiebadazz
you know it was pay to play, selling the office of the SoS.
we all know it.
Posted on 10/30/17 at 6:20 pm to CptBengal
Seems like a waste of your money if you’re not going to buy off the other 8 or so Cabinet members that could have quashed the deal
Posted on 10/30/17 at 6:22 pm to League Champs
quote:
League Champs
everything you posted was factually incorrect.
The state department had no power to stop the deal, they were but a member of the 9 member board, edit to correct, they did have veto power... Hillary never even attended a single meeting about the entire deal, the entire time...an undersecretary handled it.
Rosatom wanted the rights to the Canadian company becuase the Canadian company held rights to mineral rights in Siberia of greater value
Guistr and the Clintons were long time friends before this deal went about and Guistra left the business and sold his shares before the Uranium one deal had even started so he didnt benefit from it
500k for a former president to speak is nothing.
This post was edited on 10/30/17 at 6:42 pm
Posted on 10/30/17 at 6:28 pm to boosiebadazz
quote:
Seems like a waste of your money if you’re not going to buy off the other 8 or so Cabinet members that could have quashed the deal
How do you know that they didn't? If you don't know then you're just talking out of your arse.
Posted on 10/30/17 at 6:30 pm to bencoleman
is that your contention, Ben? Let’s get it all out on record here.
Posted on 10/30/17 at 6:31 pm to CptBengal
Here are the facts of this fiasco...
1. State Department “approved the transfer of 20 percent of America’s uranium holdings to Russia,” the United States didn’t sell, give away or transfer a single ounce of uranium to Russia in the Uranium One deal. The U.S. government wasn’t even a party to the deal.
2. Hillary Clinton had nothing to do with the Uranium One deal. Neither the State Department nor any other agency of the United States government was a party to the transaction, or even approved it. The United States government only touched the transaction because it was reviewed by The Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States.
3. There’s no connection between the Uranium One sale and the Clinton Foundation. In the absence of any evidence of a quid-pro-quo, especially where Hillary Clinton wasn’t even involved in the decision-making process, tone-deafness isn’t corruption, much less criminal activity.
There is no scandal here.
The End.
1. State Department “approved the transfer of 20 percent of America’s uranium holdings to Russia,” the United States didn’t sell, give away or transfer a single ounce of uranium to Russia in the Uranium One deal. The U.S. government wasn’t even a party to the deal.
2. Hillary Clinton had nothing to do with the Uranium One deal. Neither the State Department nor any other agency of the United States government was a party to the transaction, or even approved it. The United States government only touched the transaction because it was reviewed by The Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States.
3. There’s no connection between the Uranium One sale and the Clinton Foundation. In the absence of any evidence of a quid-pro-quo, especially where Hillary Clinton wasn’t even involved in the decision-making process, tone-deafness isn’t corruption, much less criminal activity.
There is no scandal here.
The End.
Posted on 10/30/17 at 6:35 pm to beastieboys
Beastieboys, you seem like someone who genuinely dislikes the deep state and corruption.
Why is your outrage so selective? This may not be a scandal, but you seemed to have defended Clinton at every turn. Whether it be the primary shenanigans, etc
You seem to hold the GOP to a much higher standard. I don't get it
Why is your outrage so selective? This may not be a scandal, but you seemed to have defended Clinton at every turn. Whether it be the primary shenanigans, etc
You seem to hold the GOP to a much higher standard. I don't get it
Posted on 10/30/17 at 6:35 pm to boosiebadazz
quote:
Wouldn't it undermine your argument if there were a formal process and multiple layers of review from different agencies?
party pooper
Posted on 10/30/17 at 6:41 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
quote:
HailHailtoMichigan!
This just isn't a scandal.
I will admit it looks terrible for a charitable foundation controlled by the family of the Secretary of State to accept donations from foreign interests who have business with the United States. The Clinton's richly deserve criticism for this. Without other evidence, I don't see how this story goes anywhere else.
The outrage if you want to call it that is more for why this story continues to come up in the first place. Feels like a clear attempt to divert attention away from Trump's Russia problem (Which I admit may also be nothing)
Posted on 10/30/17 at 6:44 pm to TigerDrive
This is a smoke screen diversion. Nothing here.
Posted on 10/30/17 at 7:00 pm to TigerDrive
deflection...nothing more...nothing less.
Posted on 10/30/17 at 9:05 pm to beastieboys
I understand your point ...but those guys didn't donate $135+ Million dollars to Clinton Foundation out of the goodness of their heart ... especially at the same time as they were trying to make this acquisition ....if you are trying to convince the majority of this board that no influence peddling took place .. I think you are mistaken .... and if you truly believe that contributions and huge speaking fees were just coincidental ?
come on man !
come on man !
Page 2 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News