Clinton/Uranium 1 Bribes
- Thread starter NinjaKnight
- Start date
i never said she actually sold the uranium over to russia, but if you dont think that kind of money wasnt meant for a future kick back(probably uranium), then you are the idiot.
Just to play devil's advocate, the US is both a huge exporter, and small importer, of coal. Many energy agreements are long-term, as well as between multiple parties, hedging future pricing, etc... Hence why the US both exports and imports coal.
Uranium has a similar market.
But in the case of the Clinton Global Initiative and/or the Clinton Foundation (remember, they are 2 different entities), along with Clinton's role in the State Department to determine the fate of many deals, it has a clear conflict-of-interest. That's always been her biggest issue ... along with Bill having a long history of having many too.
The Clintons have long been a walking conflict-of-interest machine. This is why the accusations in the mainstream US media of the Trumps having conflicts-of-interests gets old. They Trumps very much may do. But the level of scrutiny applied ... at least until only recently (as a result of throwing enough at the Trumps) ... had been greatly reduced.
The problem with Snopes is that they have been excessively inconsistent in their application of their terminology and ratings. So their objectivity has been shot the last, several years.
Although the information contained within is pretty good, if you read all the details (especially when they don't leave things out), if it's left-wing conspiracy (about the right), they are more likely to give it a true rating. But if it's right-wing conspiracy (about the let), they are more likely to give it a false rating.
I'm not parsing words. You're saying it doesn't matter because Russia isn't getting the uranium. The uranium is not the story. It's the Russian government funneling $145M to the Clintons for the contract.
Heeeeeeey one guy actually gets it. And it didn't take you 2 weeks like it did when you fuked up about the 1st ammendment. Now try informing the rest of your entourage so ya'll don't look quite so ignorant.
Last edited:
Jeff Sessions says they're not going to appoint a Special Counsel for Uranium One investigation, saying such an accusation has to be founded on "a factual basis." LOL
http://jamiedupree.blog.ajc.com/201...for-special-counsel-to-probe-hillary-clinton/
"U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions told lawmakers on Tuesday that there would need to be facts to support such a high profile investigation, giving no indication that such a probe has been authorized by the Justice Department.
“What’s it going to take to actually get a special counsel?” asked Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH), who repeatedly pressed Sessions on the need for a probe to look at the Uranium One matter, the Clinton Foundation and more.
“It would take a factual basis,” the Attorney General replied, in an extended back and forth with the Ohio Republican.
“The only thing I can tell you Mr. Jordan, you can have your idea, but sometimes we have to study what the facts are.”
"“I would say, ‘looks like’ is not enough basis to appoint a special counsel,” the Attorney General said, "
As for the two Republicans in the House who were going to conduct their own investigation - no hearings have been scheduled for that either.
http://jamiedupree.blog.ajc.com/201...for-special-counsel-to-probe-hillary-clinton/
"U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions told lawmakers on Tuesday that there would need to be facts to support such a high profile investigation, giving no indication that such a probe has been authorized by the Justice Department.
“What’s it going to take to actually get a special counsel?” asked Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH), who repeatedly pressed Sessions on the need for a probe to look at the Uranium One matter, the Clinton Foundation and more.
“It would take a factual basis,” the Attorney General replied, in an extended back and forth with the Ohio Republican.
“The only thing I can tell you Mr. Jordan, you can have your idea, but sometimes we have to study what the facts are.”
"“I would say, ‘looks like’ is not enough basis to appoint a special counsel,” the Attorney General said, "
As for the two Republicans in the House who were going to conduct their own investigation - no hearings have been scheduled for that either.
What’s so funny? The Clintons are crooks but they’re smart crooks. This looks and feels absolutely corrupt and it surely is, but they know how to do this in a way where they’re untouchable.
It's funny because of how much certain people really want the deal to be a huge scandal when it simply just isn't one.
Yeah, the Clintons are crooks, but so are lots of politicians. They're not murderers or selling out our country's uranium though.
Sorry, but I'm with 85 here.
Hillary is a master lawyer who knows how to do things in ways that mitigate accountability.
Everyone in the InfoSec world -- right down to Combetta -- knows why she did what she did, especially after the DoJ gave them liability, so the FBI's hands would be tied. But most of all ...
Why she setup her own SMTP server in the first place, as soon as she got her first, government position. It was to prevent the investigations of the '90s, she had learned from. No paper trail the government controlled. I.e., it was intentionally that way. If you find me anyone in the InfoSec community who disagrees, then I'm all ears.
The problem was ... unlike Powell ... she used it for everything. She ignored DISA and even the NSA. She knew what she was doing. She wasn't ignorant -- which is what I originally played it off as. Quite the opposite. And her lying about not reading her SSBI paperwork is a joke.
I really didn't care about the e-mail server until DoD personnel went on-record saying she ordered them to transpose classified information. They did not, but State personnel did (as we now know) ... but none of them would finger Clinton as ordering them, like she did DoD personnel.
That's why some people have stated many things about her that are unavoidable. Even Powell, who has always appreciated the Clintons for picking him as Joint Chief of Staff -- the youngest ever (not just black) and a ROTC grad (not an academy) -- took major issue with her throwing him under-the-bus for things he never did or said to her.
Why she setup her own SMTP server in the first place, as soon as she got her first, government position. It was to prevent the investigations of the '90s, she had learned from. No paper trail the government controlled. I.e., it was intentionally that way. If you find me anyone in the InfoSec community who disagrees, then I'm all ears.
The problem was ... unlike Powell ... she used it for everything. She ignored DISA and even the NSA. She knew what she was doing. She wasn't ignorant -- which is what I originally played it off as. Quite the opposite. And her lying about not reading her SSBI paperwork is a joke.
I really didn't care about the e-mail server until DoD personnel went on-record saying she ordered them to transpose classified information. They did not, but State personnel did (as we now know) ... but none of them would finger Clinton as ordering them, like she did DoD personnel.
That's why some people have stated many things about her that are unavoidable. Even Powell, who has always appreciated the Clintons for picking him as Joint Chief of Staff -- the youngest ever (not just black) and a ROTC grad (not an academy) -- took major issue with her throwing him under-the-bus for things he never did or said to her.
The Clintons are one huge liability. Bill is just naive, to the point they took away his officer standing from various organizations they run.
Hillary is a destroyer, and has been on the national seen since the first year in 1993. The public files -- from US OPM to GAO -- on Travelgate is a very, very sober reminder of how Hillary treats people. She hasn't changed, and a total hypocrite from her '60s activism (the near-the-end part I loved about Primary Colors).
No. But they have a list of untimely circumstances that aren't just in Breibart or on Fox News. That's what bothers people most. It's what the "Clinton caravan of trash" that seems to follow them that very much might.
As I said, energy is a traded commodity. The problem is the sheer conflict-of-interests she had, combined with a paper trail only she controlled, at her discretion, not a US federal agency. She was very smart to do this. It's why it's a felony for someone with a SSBI to do this, and the FBI does not need a warranty to investigate (although they need a warrant if it's not on a device or in an area without someone having SSBI or family member who has a background check).
No, but there are vested, Russian interests in the companies that have. Just like there are countless US interests in foreign countries, and even more so than the Russians.
The economy is global. And "near-bribes" are not only rampant, but even legal in many nations ... including the US, to a point. That's the problem President Obama had with active Secretary Clinton, repeatedly.
It's more than just one country or one figurehead. But Americans can't seem to think outside the singularity. I also notice this when they speak both for or against "God," when the obviousness of the Truth isn't actually in conflict with either.
Uranium has, in fact, been shipped out of this country by Uranium One after this deal. https://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/...s-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html
"Mr. Christensen, 65, noted that despite assurances by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission that uranium could not leave the country without Uranium One or ARMZ obtaining an export license — which they do not have — yellowcake from his property was routinely packed into drums and trucked off to a processing plant in Canada.
Asked about that, the commission confirmed that Uranium One has, in fact, shipped yellowcake to Canada even though it does not have an export license. Instead, the transport company doing the shipping, RSB Logistic Services, has the license. A commission spokesman said that “to the best of our knowledge” most of the uranium sent to Canada for processing was returned for use in the United States. A Uranium One spokeswoman, Donna Wichers, said 25 percent had gone to Western Europe and Japan."
And if you don't think there is a historic problem with subsequent exportation of goods from this country and Western European countries, then you've got a lot of research to do. Start with Raytheon and Iraq and work your way forward.
You obviously didn't read the whole quote. They couldn't account for all of it, but 25% ended up in Western Europe and Japan. All of that controverts the non-exportation talking point that many are using to say that this is a totally innocuous sale.
And none of it went to Russia. I did read the whole quote. The uranium "exported" to Canada form the US mines. Not Russia.
Again, the US does not produce all that much uranium and imports far more than it mines locally. And 2 major sources of that importation are Kazakhstan and Russia. Russia doesn't need our uranium.
Actually, it's not. China and Russia use the NAFTA agreement via Canada regularly to by-pass various oversight. This it the free trade "security issue" that Ross Perot spoke of back in '96, as well as the fact that it wasn't really free trade.
But over 100 companies (with 5 that had direct and not just minor ties to Gore's family investments) that were named in the very initial law. Special interest and a global economy make for a very interesting situation.
It's not shocking that the US is the #1 country in the world for human trafficking, and it's our #2 crime (behind drugs, ahead of gun running). We have no control over organized crime, as they have infiltrated local governments ... yes, American, not just Mexican.
It's not that simple. With export-controlled items, the originator is required to maintain visibility of the items all the way through to the final destination. Uranium One would be responsible for knowing exactly what happened with every spec of that yellowcake wherever in the world it is. For them to say that they aren't clear on where it all went is a problem.
They are also responsible for whatever each country in the chain does with it as well. If it is exported from Canada to plants in France, that will be listed. If then France trades it to Iran or North Korea, as they have done with other ITAR-restricted items in the past many times to countries that are unfriendly to the US, then that is a major violation and is Uranium One's fault. Theoretically, Russia can utilize just such a pathway to give Iran yellowcake while maintaining plausible deniability. It all comes down to the honor system at some point. That's what makes this concerning from an international security perspective. More so since Uranium One is claiming ambiguity in knowing what happened to what should be a very strictly managed material.
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/453758/unranium-one-focus-corruption-not-national-security
This is important to understand:
Read that article and tell me both HRC and Bill shouldn't have been indicted following this ordeal. What an absolute crock of shit.
I never said they shouldn't. They absolutely should. They're the worst. But that's the problem with the story. The narrative isn't what it should be - that the Clintons took bribes to foster an international deal that jeopardizes more than just the US. The foolish narrative is that they sold out US reserves, when that just isn't the case - but that makes for a better talking point. It's just wrong.
I'm not trying to refute anything in that article. I'm mainly working on the factual error that has been perpetuated that the material could not under any circumstance be moved out of the country and even if it is there's no possible way it could be a national security issue. The fact is the material did move out of the US and it could/should be a security issue. Even if it's not the primary concern of the entire deal.
