Jump to content


Investigation: Uranium Sale/DNC/Clintons


Recommended Posts

10 minutes ago, knapplc said:

 

Which begs the question, then, where did you hear about this as a thing that is a concern, that we should be discussing? 

I believe my first contact was the Washington Post article - that or the Hill article.  Can't remember which one was 1st.  Looked around and saw the other links that I posted. 

Link to comment

10 minutes ago, commando said:

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

 

But 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.”

This is a good quote.  # 4 is some thing that is never heard but is the big elephant in the room. I didn't know about # 4.  That is a great safe guard to the sale.  Thanks for sharing all of this.  It all makes good sense. 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, knapplc said:

Because this Uranium One thing has been debunked and debunked and debunked and debunked.  It is not news.  See:

 

 

Good interview by the interviewer. The Washington Examiner person didn't have much to stand on afterwards. 

Link to comment

 

Not to belabor a point or to get the last word in, I felt I need to correct a misconception.  Knapp since you added the above quote(Rupert Murdoch owns the WSJ) to your previous statement : You regurgitate the news you consume. It's all very clear who consumes what.

I need to take exception to your statement and by implications that (1) The WSJ is some right wing rag and (2) Since I quoted it, therefore I'm regurgitator of far right wing news.(1) As noted in the Media Bias Thread, there were two sources provided that showed the WSJ to be a center right publication. See chart below.  WSJ has never been considered a far right wing rag. While its OPED pages may be more conservative than its news pages, it has never been in the same discussion as a far right rag. In the chart below, it occupies to the right the same spot that the often quoted Vox occupies to the left.  I've read other conservatives who think the WSJ isn't conservative enough.  Regardless, I quoted it without comment and left it to stand or fall on its own.  (2) Frankly I don't care if someone posts a far left or far right article.  Let the articles be discussed and be hashed out on their own merit.  If it is an unreliable source, it will be proven in the discussion.  The purpose of HB is to hash these things out without ridicule & judgement. If you really want to correct someone (instead of gaining gotcha points - which is the temptation for all of us) then correct as a teacher and not as a judge.  I've had many teachable moments on HP by posts many have made, including you.  But I won't be pressured into a certain mindset through ridicule, labeling, or popular group think.  Give me the facts, and I will consider it.  If a life long republican voter like me can turn on the party and on Trump, I think I'm open enough to consider other points of view - including those from you and even those more on the left of center political spectrum.                                                                                                                                

 

image.thumb.png.85498df79ada3d836975102ede9b1cb3.png

 

 

image.png

Edited by TGHusker
Link to comment

I am guessing this is the only reason this has popped up again. Can't fire Mueller, throw crap at the fan until the whole place smells.

 

Linky Link

 

Roger Stone believes defunding Mueller isn’t enough. Instead, Stone wants Trump to call for a special prosecutor to investigate Hillary Clinton’s role in approving the controversial Uranium One deal that’s been a locus of rightwing hysteria (the transaction involved a Russian state-owned energy firm acquiring a Canadian mining company that controlled 20 percent of the uranium in the United States). It’s a bit of a bank shot, but as Stone described it, a special prosecutor looking into Uranium One would also have to investigate the F.B.I.’s role in approving the deal, thereby making Mueller—who was in charge of the bureau at the time—a target. Stone’s choice for a special prosecutor: Rudy Giuliani law colleague Marc Mukasey or Fox News pundit Andrew Napolitano. “You would immediately have to inform Mueller, Comey, and [Deputy Attorney General] Rod Rosenstein that they are under federal investigation,” Stone said. “Trump can’t afford to fire Mueller politically. But this pushes him aside.”

 

Link to comment
18 minutes ago, deedsker said:

I am guessing this is the only reason this has popped up again. Can't fire Mueller, throw crap at the fan until the whole place smells.

 

Linky Link

 

Roger Stone believes defunding Mueller isn’t enough. Instead, Stone wants Trump to call for a special prosecutor to investigate Hillary Clinton’s role in approving the controversial Uranium One deal that’s been a locus of rightwing hysteria (the transaction involved a Russian state-owned energy firm acquiring a Canadian mining company that controlled 20 percent of the uranium in the United States). It’s a bit of a bank shot, but as Stone described it, a special prosecutor looking into Uranium One would also have to investigate the F.B.I.’s role in approving the deal, thereby making Mueller—who was in charge of the bureau at the time—a target. Stone’s choice for a special prosecutor: Rudy Giuliani law colleague Marc Mukasey or Fox News pundit Andrew Napolitano. “You would immediately have to inform Mueller, Comey, and [Deputy Attorney General] Rod Rosenstein that they are under federal investigation,” Stone said. “Trump can’t afford to fire Mueller politically. But this pushes him aside.”

 

Roger Stone is the dregs of US politics. Basically, if Roger Stone suggests something, we should immediately consider doing the opposite.

  • Plus1 1
Link to comment

Pretty devious.  I guess this will fall under the "Seriousness of the Allegations" category.    Serious chess game going on here.   I'm thinking now that the allegations came out late last week as Trump's team may have been tipped off on the Manafort indictment, etc.  Rudy would be a wild man running this kangaroo court.

Edited by TGHusker
Link to comment

18 minutes ago, TGHusker said:

Pretty devious.  I guess this will fall under the "Seriousness of the Allegations" category.    Serious chess game going on here.   I'm thinking now that the allegations came out late last week as Trump's team may have been tipped off on the Manafort indictment, etc.  Rudy would be a wild man running this kangaroo court.

 

But even as you noted before, it isn't chess, but creating outrage at nothing to maintain power over people who aren't aware of the nonissue. A 2 minute clip clears up everything and why nobody should even care. This crap is exactly why we have so many issues in our country because too many people don't have time to hear all the facts and are left with Hillary should be under investigation because I heard some shady stuff about uranium.

 

This is the root of the problems plaguing our nation. We have real issues to resolve and, instead, we get thrown down these rabbit holes that do nothing for anyone.

Edited by deedsker
  • Plus1 2
Link to comment
On 10/31/2017 at 10:56 AM, TGHusker said:

Other than Newsmax which is a news re-aggitator

 

It isn't.  Newsmax is a right-leaning, pro-Trump site. 

 

Trump-aligned network courts O’Reilly

 

Quote

Newsmax, the conservative media network with strong ties to President Donald Trump, is courting disgraced former Fox News host Bill O’Reilly for a potential deal that would return him to cable television, Newsmax CEO Chris Ruddy told POLITICO on Wednesday.

 

 

 

 

Newsmax Media

 

Quote

Newsmax Media is an American news media organization founded by Christopher Ruddy and based in West Palm Beach, Florida. It operates a multiplatform network focused on conservative[1] media, including the news website Newsmax.com, publishes the Franklin Prosperity Report and Newsmax magazine, and the cable news channel Newsmax TV.

 

  • Plus1 1
Link to comment
14 minutes ago, knapplc said:

 

It isn't.  Newsmax is a right-leaning, pro-Trump site. 

 

Trump-aligned network courts O’Reilly

 

 

 

 

 

Newsmax Media

 

 

Chris Rudy was more of a Jeb supporter during the primaries. Then a Rubio supporter.   He came under fire for being a donor to the Clinton Foundation.  They are conservative but they aren't  Trump supporting - like the Drudge report was, or Brietbart, Info wars. etc.   So conservative yes, a Trump mouth piece no.   I state this because I've seen plenty of neg trump articles on the site which draw the displeasure of trump supporters - many of whom accuse Newsmax of being a MSM sellout.    They often link to NYT, Wash Post, Reuters, The Hill, Politico and other similar sites in their articles.

Link to comment
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...