Jump to content

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


tar
 Share

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, swansont said:

"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. 

 

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.

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

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.

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?)

all those "facts" are not wrong, but the case for Hilary not being involved is dashed by the missing fact that I posted before

“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.”

This keeps all the facts true, except for the most important one.  Could Hilary have stopped it?  The above quote makes it clear that Hilary's opposition would have been enough to kick the decision up to the President.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, tar said:

all those "facts" are not wrong, but the case for Hilary not being involved is dashed by the missing fact that I posted before

“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.”

This keeps all the facts true, except for the most important one.  Could Hilary have stopped it?  The above quote makes it clear that Hilary's opposition would have been enough to kick the decision up to the President.

The Senate vote overwhelmingly (98-2) to sanction Russia for their interference in our election and Trump is dragging his feet on enacting those sanctions. Your sense of what does or doesn't matter with regards to Russia seems to have an aggressively partisan tilt. The Uranium deal was done on the up and up. It had multi agency review and transparency. You are conflating criminal behavior with policy you disagree with. The two are not the same. No one here is arguig that your should like the Uranium deal. Rather we are pointing out to your that there was nothing illegal, unethical, unpatriotic, or otherwise wrong with the Uranium deal. What that said what is your main point about it other than wishing it weren't so?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, tar said:

all those "facts" are not wrong, but the case for Hilary not being involved is dashed by the missing fact that I posted before

“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.”

This keeps all the facts true, except for the most important one.  Could Hilary have stopped it?  The above quote makes it clear that Hilary's opposition would have been enough to kick the decision up to the President.

All you're missing here is 1) why she is being singled out, since anyone could have raised an objection — but no, this is all on Clinton and 2) any kind of fact-based argument as to why one should object. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/31/2017 at 5:24 PM, tar said:

Russians were getting control of a Canadian country

As far as I understand it, there's only one Canadian country; it's called Canada, and the Russians don't have control over it.

 

Does the rest of the thread get better, or should I stop reading  here?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

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.