Wanna-B-Fanboy

You conveniently left out the following from that wiki page: I call bunk on the right-wing talking points: https://www.snopes.com/hillary-clinton-uranium-russia-deal/ Trump’s campaign repeated the allegation in a September 2016 press release, and again in an October 2016 television ad stating that Clinton “gave American uranium rights to the Russians”: An image circulating via social media during the final months of the presidential campaign asked the question, “So Hillary, if Russia is such a threat, why did you sell them 20% of our uranium? Are you a liar, or a traitor, or both?” The Uranium One Deal Was Not Clinton’s to Veto or Approve Among the ways these accusations stray from the facts is in attributing a power of veto or approval to Secretary Clinton that she simply did not have. Clinton was one of nine cabinet members and department heads that sit on the CFIUS, and the secretary of the treasury is its chairperson. CFIUS members are collectively charged with evaluating proposed foreign acquisitions for potential national security issues, then turning their findings over to the president. By law, the committee can’t veto a transaction; only the president can. All nine federal agencies were required to approve the Uranium One transaction before it could go forward. According to The New York Times, Clinton may not have even directly participated in the decision. Then-Assistant Secretary of State Jose Fernandez, whose job it was to represent the State Dept. on CFIUS, said Clinton “never intervened” in committee matters. Clinton herself has said she wasn’t personally involved. There Is No Evidence That Uranium Went to Russia That a change of company ownership occurred doesn’t mean that 10 to 20 percent of America’s uranium literally went to Russia. Neither Uranium One nor ARMZ (Rosatom’s mining subsidiary) is licensed to export uranium from the U.S. to other countries. Some exports did occur, however. A 2015 letter from NRC official Mark Satorius to a member of Congress revealed that an unspecified amount of yellowcake (semi-processed) uranium was shipped from a Uranium One facility in Wyoming to Canada between 2012 and 2014 for conversion (additional processing to prepare it for enrichment). A portion of that uranium was subsequently shipped to enrichment plants in Europe. The transfers to Canada were legal despite Uranium One’s not holding an export license because the NRC granted such a license to the company that transported it. The transfers to Europe were legal because they were approved by another agency, the U.S. Dept. of Energy. Satorius stressed that the transfers were subject to NRC oversight and all applicable safety and national security regulations: Additionally, a small amount of that exported uranium was, in fact, sold to other countries. According to a 2 November 2017 article in The Hill, Uranium One officials acknowledged that approximately 25 percent of the yellowcake exported for conversion was subsequently sold via “book transfer” to customers in Western Europe and Asia (yellowcake being a fungible commodity, that doesn’t necessarily translate to a physical transfer of the product, however). To date, there is no evidence that any of this uranium made its way to Russia. An NRC spokesman cited by FactCheck.org in October 2017 reaffirmed Satorius’s assurances that “the U.S. government has not authorized any country to re-transfer U.S. uranium to Russia.” NRC officials also say they’re unaware of any Uranium One exports from the U.S. to foreign countries since 2014. The Timing of Most of the Clinton Foundation Donations Does Not Match Of the $145 million allegedly contributed to the Clinton Foundation by Uranium One investors, the lion’s share — $131.3 million — came from a single donor, Frank Giustra, the company’s Canadian founder. But Giustra sold off his entire stake in the company in 2007, three years before the Russia deal and at least 18 months before Clinton became secretary of state. Of the remaining individuals connected with Uranium One who donated to the Clinton Foundation, only one was found to have contributed during the same time frame that the deal was taking place, according to The New York Times — Ian Telfer (also a Canadian), the company’s chairman: In addition to the Clinton Foundation donations, the New York Times also cited a $500,000 speaking fee paid to former president Bill Clinton by a Russian investment bank in June 2010, before the Uranium One deal was approved: The timing of Telfer’s Clinton Foundation donations and Bill Clinton’s Renaissance Capital speaking fee might be questionable if there was reason to believe that Hillary Clinton was instrumental in the approval of the deal with Russia, but all the evidence points to the contrary — that Clinton did not play a pivotal role, and, in fact, may not have played any role at all. Moreover, neither Clinton nor her department possessed sole power of approval over said transaction. Foundation Admits to Disclosure Mistakes One fault investigations into the Clinton Foundation’s practices did find was that not all of the donations were properly disclosed — specifically, those of Uranium One Chairman Ian Telfer between 2009 and 2012. The foundation admitted this shortcoming and pledged to correct it, but as the Guardian pointed out in its May 2015 discussion of Clinton Cash, the fact that it happened is reason enough to sound alarm bells: An enormous volume of interest and speculation surrounds the workings of the Clinton Foundation, which is to be expected. Given the enormous sums of money it controls and the fact that it is run by a former U.S. president who is married to a former U.S. secretary of state and presidential candidate, the foundation deserves all the scrutiny it gets, and more. At the same time, for the sake of accuracy it’s crucial to differentiate between partisan accusations and what we actually know about it — however little that may be. Update On 17 October 2017, The Hill reported obtaining evidence that Vadim Mikerin, a Russian official who oversaw the American operations of the Russian nuclear agency Rosatom, was being investigated for corruption by multiple U.S. agencies while the Uranium One deal was up for approval — information that apparently was not shared with U.S. officials involved in approving the transaction. The Hill also reported receiving documents and eyewitness testimony “indicating Russian nuclear officials had routed millions of dollars to the U.S. designed to benefit former President Bill Clinton’s charitable foundation during the time Secretary of State Hillary Clinton served on a government body that provided a favorable decision to Moscow,” although no specifics about who those Russian nuclear officials were or how the money was allegedly routed to the Clinton Foundation were given. In any case, none of these revelations prove that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton participated in a quid pro quo agreement to accept payment for approval of the Uranium One deal. On 24 October 2017, the U.S. House intelligence and oversight committees announced the launch of a joint investigation into the circumstances surrounding the Russian purchase of Uranium One. The Fauxnews network just lies.... lies... lies... lies. They don't even try hard to make **** up. Just repeat the talking points ad nauseum and it eventually holds true in the minds of the viewers....

Crazy if true. Can you walk me through this please? I am having trouble connecting these people to U1 and trump russia.

The old republic... helmed by these two... would be awesome.

I thought it was pretty silly of Trudeau to say peoplekind instead of humankind to correct someone- but honestly, I just don't care about **** like this anymore. It's hard to take umbrage with these kind of things when you have Trump 24/7. I don't like this new norm- I want to be outraged at stupid gaffes made by politicians. I miss the days when I could make fun of Mulcair's creepy campaigning smile or Dear Leader's Barbaric practices hotline... That seems so, small now.

To be fair.... For your bung or your blunt: Toilet paper > rolling papers

Cuz... it's not? Now Colluding with a hostile foreign power to win a presidential election... that would be more on the mark. What a maroon. I understand, that he probably doesn't believe 75% of the **** that spews outta his foodhole- but man, He really doesn't give humans any benefit of a doubt that they posses a modicum of intelligence.

Maddow, once again. She outlines possible money laundering:

yeah- I posted his deleted tweet above. How tone deaf is that?

Rachel Maddow outlines the visit last week by the head of three spy agencies to US soil... including one of them that is barred from US soil due to sanctions. It's a pretty cool clip that is outlined very well and sourced. If you couple the visit of the head of the three russian spy agency with the release of the memo to obfuscate the meeting, you basically get russian spies walking and mingling in the open with trump admin officials with very very tiny coverage. It's classic.

Seriously... tone deaf... My favourite reply:

ZOMG!!!!! DEEPSTATE WEAPONIZEDINTELLIGENCEFISA Good grief- after watching 13mins of that **** I need a silkwoodshower... and bleaching my eyeballs.... and taking a pen to my eardrums...

Wow- puppet president. http://www.msnbc.com/all-in/watch/did-hannity-convince-trump-to-release-the-memo-1152791619796

Wait... wut? Where does Hilary come into this?

"Third, understand that the CIA told the BBC in January '17 that the most controversial allegation in Steele's dossier—the allegation the Kremlin has blackmail material on Trump of a sexual nature—was true. " Wait... what? the tapes are real?

Form of control really. narrow the spectrum of debate: Ndp/liberal/conservative and anything out side of that spectrum is ******* crazy speak.

I was pretty disappointed when she presented Trumps 2005 tax returns... the lead up to that was very al capone's vaults- like. She is usually much better and well sourced. This piece was well thought out, well sourced and well presented.

Great read- thanks for the link

This kind of blows my mind. All three of the top russian spy chiefs meet with US intelligence officials in Washington ... ... perhaps to discuss how to better coordinate strategies for the 2018 US bi-elections?

This could be his plan to further reduce Black unemployment in the US.

There's a slim LaFrance he signs here.