Jump to content

Uranium One (split from Mueller indictments (split from Collusion with Russia))


tar
 Share

Recommended Posts

part of this, is a what did he know, when did he know it thing, and being such, I am sure he knew something at some point that he pretended he didn't know, but please remember that is like Hilary saying she had nothing to do with the Uranium One deal.   It basically means she was either an inept Secretary of State, and didn't know the Russians were getting control of a Canadian country that had control of a fifth of our Uranium.  Either way she is wrong.  But she has not done anything illegal until she is caught in a lie, made to congress or the FB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, tar said:

part of this, is a what did he know, when did he know it thing, and being such, I am sure he knew something at some point that he pretended he didn't know, but please remember that is like Hilary saying she had nothing to do with the Uranium One deal.   It basically means she was either an inept Secretary of State, and didn't know the Russians were getting control of a Canadian country that had control of a fifth of our Uranium.  Either way she is wrong.  But she has not done anything illegal until she is caught in a lie, made to congress or the FB

image.png.d086f9d4f2f48a88997030b385d08cce.png

Tar, Trump is not named in the appointment of a special counsel. Robert Mueller is free to follow the pertinent evidence. If Hillary Clinton or her team did something that can be investigated. Robert Mueller is a former FBI Directory. He was appointed Director by Bush. Robert Mueller is not a politician or a partisan liberal on a witch hunt. Solets stick to that facts of the investigation.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Off-topic, but needs to be addressed because it's bullshit:

https://www.vox.com/world/2017/2/17/14649980/trump-clinton-russia-uranium

Quote

The claim that Clinton gave 20 percent of America’s uranium to Russia is incorrect and clearly misleading. Trump is referring to Russia’s nuclear power agency purchasing a majority stake in a Toronto-based energy company between 2009 and 2013. The company had mines and land in a number of US states with huge uranium production capacity — a move the US State Department signed off on. But PolitiFact did a thorough fact-check of the claim last year when Trump first made it on the campaign trail, and found the following faults with it:

1. The mines, mills, and land the company holds in the US account for 20 percent of the US’s uranium production capacity, not actual produced uranium.

2. The State Department was one of nine federal agencies and a number of additional independent federal and state regulators that signed off on the deal.

3. President Obama, not Secretary Clinton, was the only person who could’ve vetoed the deal.

4. Since Russia doesn’t have the legal right to export uranium out of the US, its main goal was likely to gain access to the company’s uranium assets in Kazakhstan.

5. Crucially, the main national security concern was not about nuclear weapons proliferation, as Trump suggests, but actually ensuring the US doesn’t have to depend too much on uranium sources from abroad, as the US only makes about 20 percent of the uranium it needs. An advantage in making nuclear weapons wasn’t the main issue because, as PolitiFact notes, “the United States and Russia had for years cooperated on that front, with Russia sending enriched fuel from decommissioned warheads to be used in American nuclear power plants in return for raw uranium.”

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

“Hillary’s opposition [to the Uranium One deal] would have been enough under CFIUS rules to have the decision on the transaction kicked up to the president. That never happened,” Schweizer wrote in “Clinton Cash.”

 

Thread.   The fact that the decision was made by 9 agencies does not relieve Hilary from having the responsibility to stop the transaction.  And Obama could have stopped it then and when Russia got 100% ownership of Uranium One.    If the whole business happened under Hilary and Obama's watch and its OK to have happened and to continue to be the case, while we are trying to pressure Russia into respecting Ukrainian soil and independence,  then we have a decent respectable give and take with Russia, even with the sanctions and there is no harm in Trump seeking to establish a  relationship with Russia.  We already have one.   

 

1 hour ago, swansont said:

SwansonT,

I don't watch CNBC or CNN since Jay Tapper broke the leaked dossier thing.  Everything is spun as if Trump is a criminal.

If I do see something I have to de-spin it, same as you would de-spin an article in Beitbart or on cable FOX.  

CNN during the election cycle I would watch as the middle of the road, slightly democrat best information.  Fox I would have to de-right wing, and CNBC I would have to de-left wing.  After the election loss, it became watch Fox for the news and watch CNBC if you wanted to see how a positive could be turned into a negative.   It was so predictable, it made me sick and I stopped watching.  Imagine that.  I used to avoid Fox because it was so predictably anti-Obama.  Now I don't watch CNN and CNBC because it is so predictably anti-Trump.

Regards, TAR

he could cure cancer and CNBC would have a piece about sexual harassment at the hospital that did the research he funded, and how his company profited because they built the hospital

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, iNow said:

Dismissing the entire source as biased aside, what about the actual points made within? What about my points? 

Republicans control all branches of government. If Clinton committed a crime she would have already been indicted. This is a shameful and immature case of tit for tat. Their person has pie on their face so for the sake of parity they want pie on other peoples faces. It is pathetic. Indictments roll out in realtime so now Trump supporters what to go back in time and address things already litigated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, iNow said:

Dismissing the entire source as biased aside, what about the actual points made within? What about my points? 

iNow,

I don't dismiss an entire source as bias, I just don't watch a predictable spin that makes me switch the channel.   They all report the news, and they all add a spin.  I don't currently have an average station to watch, as CNN was, before Tapper started doubling down to protect his credibility.  He doubled down to the point where the only way he could not be an ass is if Trump actually was a criminal.  So I just watch Fox and de-spin and come up with my own idea of what happened and what it means.  I don't really need anybody to interpret.  I just need a trusted news source.  I don't have one at the moment, so I do the best I can.  My current scheme is to take whatever CNBC says, subtract "Trump is a racist, sexist, fascist... and Putin's hand puppet" and take whatever is left as the news.  Usually there is nothing else they say but that, so I don't watch.

And I addressed your points.  Hillary could have stopped it, and did not.

Regards, TAR

 

 

Edited by tar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, tar said:

 

And I addressed your points.  Hillary could have stopped it, and did not.

Regards, TAR

 

 

The old rape victim was wearing a short skirt excuse. Bad behavior is okay provided others didn't do enough to stop it..... SMH. You are a electronics tech of sorts so perhaps the following analogy will resonate. When I find a fault in a circuit I fix it. I don't leave the fault in place of modify the rest of the circuit to operate with the fault; jury-rig. You're attempting to debate via vinyl tape and jumpers. Time to just do the right thing and repair the circuit properly.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

Republicans control all branches of government. If Clinton committed a crime she would have already been indicted. This is a shameful and immature case of tit for tat. Their person has pie on their face so for the sake of parity they want pie on other peoples faces. It is pathetic. Indictments roll out in realtime so now Trump supporters what to go back in time and address things already litigated.

Fox didn't bring up Uranium One, in the indictment thread.  I did.   And Russia owning 20 percent of our Uranium reserves is not old news it is the current situation.

I saw a piece on Fox with Susan Rice saying the embassy bombing was a response to a hateful video.  Fox bringing up old news?  No.  It was spin, to show the lies of the Obama administration, in combination with some real news that Trump had brought at least one of the perpetrators to justice.

The reality is that Russia controls 20 percent of our Uranium supply.  How did we let that happen?  Were there payoffs or did Hilary think it was a great idea without any payoffs?   She can't say she had nothing to do with it.  She was secretary of state, it was her job to have something to do with it.  Use is as leverage to get Russia out of Crimea or something.  Nothing.  

So why?  What is the rational to have Russia giving us spent uranium from decommissioned nuclear weapons in exchange for fresh uranium?   Anyone in the world can enrich uranium, and it is in our national security interests to control 100% of our Uranium specifically because of this.

Energy is the currency of the world.  Russia controls a lot of the oil and gas the EU needs.  Now they control 1/5 of our Uranium.  How is this in our interests as we clash with Russia in places like Syria for control of the oil supply?

If Hillary and Obama let this happen on their watch, that is not a wonderful gold star to put on their resume.

 

 

16 minutes ago, iNow said:

What specifically was spun in the clip shared?

The woman on the left asked the woman on the right leading questions so the woman on the right could only say what the woman on the left was allowing.  Any time the woman on the right attempted to qualify an answer, the woman on the left cut her off.

 

47 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

The old rape victim was wearing a short skirt excuse. Bad behavior is okay provided others didn't do enough to stop it..... SMH. You are a electronics tech of sorts so perhaps the following analogy will resonate. When I find a fault in a circuit I fix it. I don't leave the fault in place of modify the rest of the circuit to operate with the fault; jury-rig. You're attempting to debate via vinyl tape and jumpers. Time to just do the right thing and repair the circuit properly.

 

You are trying to reverse the election.  You actually can't.  And you actually shouldn't try.  We elected Trump.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, tar said:

Fox didn't bring up Uranium One, in the indictment thread.  I did.   And Russia owning 20 percent of our Uranium reserves is not old news it is the current situation.

I saw a piece on Fox with Susan Rice saying the embassy bombing was a response to a hateful video.  Fox bringing up old news?  No.  It was spin, to show the lies of the Obama administration, in combination with some real news that Trump had brought at least one of the perpetrators to justice.

The reality is that Russia controls 20 percent of our Uranium supply.  How did we let that happen?  Were there payoffs or did Hilary think it was a great idea without any payoffs?   She can't say she had nothing to do with it.  She was secretary of state, it was her job to have something to do with it.  Use is as leverage to get Russia out of Crimea or something.  Nothing.  

So why?  What is the rational to have Russia giving us spent uranium from decommissioned nuclear weapons in exchange for fresh uranium?   Anyone in the world can enrich uranium, and it is in our national security interests to control 100% of our Uranium specifically because of this.

Energy is the currency of the world.  Russia controls a lot of the oil and gas the EU needs.  Now they control 1/5 of our Uranium.  How is this in our interests as we clash with Russia in places like Syria for control of the oil supply?

If Hillary and Obama let this happen on their watch, that is not a wonderful gold star to put on their resume.

 

 

The woman on the left asked the woman on the right leading questions so the woman on the right could only say what the woman on the left was allowing.  Any time the woman on the right attempted to qualify an answer, the woman on the left cut her off.

 

You are trying to reverse the election.  You actually can't.  And you actually shouldn't try.  We elected Trump.  

Trump lost the popular vote by 3 million and Facebook, Twitter, Google, and etc were just on the Hill today discussing how Russia push propaganda campaigned via social media in swing states. You are basically hollering "no backies" as if we shouldn't identify errors and learn from them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, tar said:

The reality is that Russia controls 20 percent of our Uranium supply.  How did we let that happen?

All you neocons want to scrap NAFTA. Okay, lets do that. No uranium for America.

Not what I'd call renegotiating from a position of strength. despite your blabbermouth of a president saying it is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, tar said:

“Hillary’s opposition [to the Uranium One deal] would have been enough under CFIUS rules to have the decision on the transaction kicked up to the president. That never happened,” Schweizer wrote in “Clinton Cash.”

 

Thread.   The fact that the decision was made by 9 agencies does not relieve Hilary from having the responsibility to stop the transaction.  And Obama could have stopped it then and when Russia got 100% ownership of Uranium One.    If the whole business happened under Hilary and Obama's watch and its OK to have happened and to continue to be the case, while we are trying to pressure Russia into respecting Ukrainian soil and independence,  then we have a decent respectable give and take with Russia, even with the sanctions and there is no harm in Trump seeking to establish a  relationship with Russia.  We already have one.   

Why is it  the transaction should have been stopped?

Quote

SwansonT,

I don't watch CNBC or CNN since Jay Tapper broke the leaked dossier thing.  Everything is spun as if Trump is a criminal.

If I do see something I have to de-spin it, same as you would de-spin an article in Beitbart or on cable FOX.  

CNN during the election cycle I would watch as the middle of the road, slightly democrat best information.  Fox I would have to de-right wing, and CNBC I would have to de-left wing.  After the election loss, it became watch Fox for the news and watch CNBC if you wanted to see how a positive could be turned into a negative.   It was so predictable, it made me sick and I stopped watching.  Imagine that.  I used to avoid Fox because it was so predictably anti-Obama.  Now I don't watch CNN and CNBC because it is so predictably anti-Trump.

You didn't watch it, but somehow know it's spin? Spare me. Your whole response here is spin. You post this, and no substantive response to any facts.

The video has zero to do with Trump. This thread has nothing to do with Trump. 

2 hours ago, iNow said:

What specifically was spun in the clip shared?

Seconded.

If it's spin, it should be easy to cite what the spin is.

2 hours ago, tar said:

 The woman on the left asked the woman on the right leading questions so the woman on the right could only say what the woman on the left was allowing.  Any time the woman on the right attempted to qualify an answer, the woman on the left cut her off.

Since when is citing facts, or asking for factual answers, spin?

Is this related to "truth has a liberal bias"?

Can you rebut any of the facts that were given?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, swansont said:

Why is it  the transaction should have been stopped?

You didn't watch it, but somehow know it's spin? Spare me. Your whole response here is spin. You post this, and no substantive response to any facts.

The video has zero to do with Trump. This thread has nothing to do with Trump. 

Seconded.

If it's spin, it should be easy to cite what the spin is.

Since when is citing facts, or asking for factual answers, spin?

Is this related to "truth has a liberal bias"?

Can you rebut any of the facts that were given?

The transaction should have been stopped because Russia, China, Iran,  the Saudis, the E.U. and the U.S. (among others) are playing a high stakes chess game, for control of the Earth's energy supply.  And we are not suppose to let a rival gain any advantage over us. Especially if the rival is not playing by civilized rules, concerning the Ukraine.

The video had a representative from the RNC taking Trump's position. Trump is the de facto leader of his party, as it is the role of the president to be the leader of his party.

I cited what the spin was, it was the leading questions that made the RNC woman just answer yes and no and not qualify the answers.  Spin, meaning in my understanding that one person takes a top and spins it clock wise and another takes the same top  and spins it counter clockwise.  The facts are the same, but the meaning of the facts, or the hidden implications, or the import of the questions make the difference and tell you the mind set of the provider of the facts.   Like I could kill a rabid squirrel with a shovel and depending on the spin you could frame me as a blood thirsty killer of helpless cute furry things, or a brave father protecting his 3 and 6 year old girls.

Spin is not lying.  Spin is looking at a situation with a certain color of glasses on.

I have no interest in rebutting any facts.  I have interest in using the facts to say Hilary let Russia gain a portion of Uranium One and Obama let them get the rest and now they own and control 1 fifth of the U.S. reserves.

Thinking these are the facts, I wonder why they let it happen.  Then when I see that a bank in Russia paid Bill half a million for a speech, I wonder what words he could have uttered that would be worth that much.  I don't think there are such a string of words worth that much, you can buy works of great writers for 30 bucks.  So I think the bank was buying some consideration.   Maybe access to Hilary, or hoping she would look the other way and let the Uranium One deal go through.   In other words she sold us out.

Regards, TAR

Edited by tar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

how do you rebut a fact?   a fact is a fact all you can rebut is someone's opinion of the facts

you rebut an argument not a fact

an argument is a certain arrangement of the facts

Edited by tar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, tar said:

So I think the bank was buying some consideration.   Maybe access to Hilary, or hoping she would look the other way and let the Uranium One deal go through.   In other words she sold us out.

No. In other words, you didn’t listen to the points made in the video. You were too busy labeling it as spin to see why this particular argument is remedially false. 

1 minute ago, tar said:

how do you rebut a fact?   a fact is a fact all you can rebut is someone's opinion of the facts

Apologies. I deleted that post and apparently you were already replying. Please see my update herein. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

so the fact that 9 other agencies in addition to the state dept. had to OK the deal and that the deal was then also Oked by the president, does not include the fact that I supplied earlier, that the State Department has veto power over the other agencies even though the president can then overrule the state depts. decision.

So Hilary, as head of the state dept does not have to be there to make the decision, but if the smart decision would be to stop the deal, she has a perfect right and all the power needed to say no.  The president could still say yes, but she could have, on the record have showed her disapproval.  So the question is, is the deal in the best interests of the U.S.   In my mind it is a no brainer.  We would not let North Korea gain control of any of our Uranium, and we would let Canada have control.  We would let the Brits or the French or the Germans, but probably not the Iranians.   Russia was our enemy in the cold war and the arms race and the Cuban Missile crisis.  When and why did they change to a close enough friend to NATO that they should have control of 1/5th of our reserves of Uranium?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

please, I have no idea what you are trying to point out

if it is that times change, I would completely agree.  That is why it would be better for us to get along with Russia than to continue the cold war, but that idea is contrary the Dems talking points since Trump made the comment that he hoped Russia had the 33,000 deleted e-mails, that started the whole hate Trump because he is colluding with the Russians that are trying to destroy our democracy, thing.  So was Hilary friendly toward Putin or standing in his way?   Which way do you figure it?   If the Obama admin wanted to punish Putin for Crimea and his current actions in Ukraine, why can't we threaten reversal of the Uranium One deal?  Seems a great place to start.

Or close all the Lukoil stations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The chronology seems to allow that the Clinton's and their circle of power were benefitted by the  deal going through.  There is no timing required however to define a time when letting Russia gain control of any of our energy reserves would have been a brilliant idea, or a desirable global power move.  Maybe before Crimea one could have figured we could lower our guard and invite Russia into our fight against global terror, and such but after Crimea, we needed to tell Russia in no uncertain terms that they broke the civil rules of Global cooperation. NATO is primarily an agreement between the countries around the north Atlantic to consider an attack by Russia (U.S.S.R.} against one, would be an attack by Russia against all. At least that was the setup when I spent two years in Kaiserslaughtern at an old NaziPanzer Kasern, protecting West Germany against Soviet Tank invasion.  There were Russian spies that frequented the bars in Kaiserslaughtern to talk to U.S. soldiers and get them to give away little pieces of information that they would assemble into troop strength and capabilities and such.  If we are still adversaries  of Russia, we should not be giving them little pieces of information, as might be gleaned from an unsecure server or a communication sent from an unsecured blackberry in a foreign country, by the secretary of state.  If we are not adversaries of Russia, then we can let them buy a Canadian company that owns some of our Uranium reserves.

Chronology wise, when was Russia our friend and global trading partner, and when was it our adversary?   Important to know these things, to parse whether Uranium One was a sensible deal, that everybody welcomed, or a questionable deal that should have been halted.

another fact to understand in this mix is that some in the Ukraine  lean toward the West and some lean toward Moscow and a lot of the natural gas that the E.U. uses flows through the Ukraine

the Europeans can't afford to shut off Russia, energywise

This leverage that Russia has, allows Putin to take Crimea and we have no way to stop him, short of war.

Under what circumstances is it a smart idea to give him leverage over our energy reserves?

Edited by tar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, tar said:

 I cited what the spin was, it was the leading questions that made the RNC woman just answer yes and no and not qualify the answers. 

"Who got the money?" is not Y/N. "What does it stand for?"(regarding CFIUS) is not Y/N. "How many people sit on that committee?" is not Y/N. "How many have to approve a deal like this?" is not Y/N. "How many approved this deal?" is not Y/N. 

"Does Hillary Clinton sit on the board?" needs to be qualified?

"Who is the person who donated to H.C?" is not Y/N.

"Did he own any assets in Uranium One at the time HC was Sec of State?" needs to be qualified? (She didn't know the answer, and the host explained the answer anyway)

 

So your "leading questions" that were Y/N boils down to "Does Hillary Clinton sit on the board?"
Yeah, lots of spin there. So much spin. 

 

8 hours ago, tar said:

Spin, meaning in my understanding that one person takes a top and spins it clock wise and another takes the same top  and spins it counter clockwise.  The facts are the same, but the meaning of the facts, or the hidden implications, or the import of the questions make the difference and tell you the mind set of the provider of the facts.   Like I could kill a rabid squirrel with a shovel and depending on the spin you could frame me as a blood thirsty killer of helpless cute furry things, or a brave father protecting his 3 and 6 year old girls.

Go ahead and spin "What does CFIUS stand for?", "How many people sit on that committee?" "How many have to approve a deal like this?", or "How many approved this deal?"

What are the right-spun answers? Because (according to you) the answers are "Committee on Foreign Investment in the US", "Nine", "Nine", and "Nine" are the ones you get by putting left-spin on them.

8 hours ago, tar said:

 I have no interest in rebutting any facts. 

Excuse me? So you're only here for the trolling?

8 hours ago, tar said:

I have interest in using the facts to say Hilary let Russia gain a portion of Uranium One and Obama let them get the rest and now they own and control 1 fifth of the U.S. reserves.

Then show that these are facts.

The Secretary of State (or any other member of CFIUS) cannot veto a transaction. Only the president can do that. All they can do is make a recommendation.

"Only the President has the authority to suspend or prohibit a covered transaction" (top of 74569)
https://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/international/foreign-investment/Documents/CFIUSGuidance.pdf

But iNow already explained this, as well as the fact that the uranium isn't leaving the country. You're just ignoring this.

8 hours ago, tar said:

Thinking these are the facts, I wonder why they let it happen.  Then when I see that a bank in Russia paid Bill half a million for a speech, I wonder what words he could have uttered that would be worth that much.  I don't think there are such a string of words worth that much, you can buy works of great writers for 30 bucks.  So I think the bank was buying some consideration.   Maybe access to Hilary, or hoping she would look the other way and let the Uranium One deal go through.   In other words she sold us out.

Regards, TAR

More innuendo, and absence of facts. (BTW, GW bush makes plenty of money in speaking fees, too. What do his customers get for their money?)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, tar said:

so the fact that 9 other agencies in addition to the state dept. had to OK the deal and that the deal was then also Oked by the president, does not include the fact that I supplied earlier, that the State Department has veto power over the other agencies even though the president can then overrule the state depts. decision.

So Hilary, as head of the state dept does not have to be there to make the decision, but if the smart decision would be to stop the deal, she has a perfect right and all the power needed to say no.  The president could still say yes, but she could have, on the record have showed her disapproval.  So the question is, is the deal in the best interests of the U.S.   In my mind it is a no brainer.  We would not let North Korea gain control of any of our Uranium, and we would let Canada have control.  We would let the Brits or the French or the Germans, but probably not the Iranians.   Russia was our enemy in the cold war and the arms race and the Cuban Missile crisis.  When and why did they change to a close enough friend to NATO that they should have control of 1/5th of our reserves of Uranium?

You couldn't even be bothered to show your disapproval of Russia manipulating of electoral process....hahahaha. There is no highhorse for you here. You are typing fear mongering nonsense about Russia and Uranium with your left hand while typing excusesfor Trump's willful compliance with Russian intelligence with your right hand. You acknowledge that the deal required a total government review and inculded several agencies. No conspiracy here. Just policy practiced in the open via the standard process which you happen to disagree with.

 

The sitting Presidents former campaign manager and foriegn policy advisor were just arrested. One has already confessed to lying to the FBI and Russia and the other is being charged with 12 counts inculding crimes against the United the States. You have responded to those serious developments by talking about Hillary Clinton; just deflecting from what matters.

Edited by Ten oz
added second paragraph
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.