- 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: Uranium story has been debunked countless times
Posted on 11/17/17 at 9:53 am to KeyserSoze999
Posted on 11/17/17 at 9:53 am to KeyserSoze999
This story is shifting to the FBI investigation of Rosatom previous to the Uranium One deal being approved. Rosatom was engaged in bribes, kickbacks, extortion here in America(just google Rosatom bribes extortion). Members of the Obama administration knew this. Eric Holder specially. Eric Holder is on the CFIUS board. He should have informed the rest of the CFIUS board of the Rosatom bribes/kickbacks. The question is did he do it. And if he didn't, why didn't he.
If Holder informs the CFIUS board of Rosatom corruption the Uranium One deal doesn't go through IMO. It shouldn't have went through just on face value IMO. Uranium One should have been made to divest its American assets before the sale. Yet even with the "Rosatom corruption" and the "Russians owning strategic assets on American soil" the deal amazingly goes through without a hitch without so much as a Senate hearing. Amazing.
If Holder informs the CFIUS board of Rosatom corruption the Uranium One deal doesn't go through IMO. It shouldn't have went through just on face value IMO. Uranium One should have been made to divest its American assets before the sale. Yet even with the "Rosatom corruption" and the "Russians owning strategic assets on American soil" the deal amazingly goes through without a hitch without so much as a Senate hearing. Amazing.
0
Posted on 11/17/17 at 10:16 am to omegaman66
quote:
Did anyone expect it to say "the facts show I along with a bunch of congress are guilty as sin"!
Of course not. But I am going along with the line of reasoning that the Roy Moore defenders here use. It has not been proven. There are only allegations.
Posted on 11/17/17 at 10:45 am to TheMidasTouch
quote:
Of course not. But I am going along with the line of reasoning that the Roy Moore defenders here use. It has not been proven. There are only allegations.
I know you mean to be condescending, but this is he first time I've seen you make a reasonable post. Of course they are just allegations. Allegations are not proof. We should expect proof before condemning. It seems odd to me that is a position you mock.
When the DOJ informant testifies Monday, and provides the expected video evidence...we can remove the "alleged" in front of the Clinton accusations. When will you be able to produce proof against Moore?
Dummy.
Posted on 11/17/17 at 10:57 am to Douboy
quote:
We are all still waiting for examples of said “debunking”.
no you're not, you are going to believe only what Trump and his lackeys say on tv, when you can go to Snopes or any other debunking website and see the entire history with timelines of the deal.
Posted on 11/17/17 at 11:03 am to Cruiserhog
quote:
Snopes
Still pushing that line, I see.
Posted on 11/17/17 at 11:40 am to TheMidasTouch
quote:
The uranium story is only based on allegations by Republicans. Nothing has been shown to be factual.
If, in fact, HRC had nothing to do with the deal, then why did the parties involved give the Clinton Foundation $140 million dollars? Wouldn't you say that this deserves more than a cursory look?
Posted on 11/17/17 at 11:49 am to Cruiserhog
quote:
Cruiserhog
Are you still pushing that false narrative that no donations were made while Hillary was SoS?
Posted on 11/17/17 at 5:16 pm to BBONDS25
quote:
I know you mean to be condescending, but this is he first time I've seen you make a reasonable post. Of course they are just allegations. Allegations are not proof. We should expect proof before condemning. It seems odd to me that is a position you mock. When the DOJ informant testifies Monday, and provides the expected video evidence...we can remove the "alleged" in front of the Clinton accusations. When will you be able to produce proof against Moore?
Let me be clear here. I don’t care about Hillary. I did not vote for her. I really have no interest in the outcome of whatever hearings might occur on her alleged deal. I do, have an interest in old Roy. Nothing has been proven. His interview on Hannity was more than suspect. We might find out if the allegations are true. We might not. I really don’t care. Even before all of this I hope he loses the election.
quote:
Dummy
Posted on 11/17/17 at 5:30 pm to KeyserSoze999
HRC is like a worn out tired nappy 70 year old version of a child who gets caught red handed plucking a cookie out of the cookie jar. Her excuses are about on the same maturity level as well and she knows people know better and are on to her but of course now she is in too deep and has to pretend she didn't do anything banking the media and Hollywood will shill for her in the meantime.
This post was edited on 11/17/17 at 9:58 pm
Page 3 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News