Uranium One

#26
#26
Mick said:
Justice Department officials, in a December briefing to House oversight committee staff, reportedly said that “the whistleblower had offered no evidence about Clinton” and that they “began to have ‘serious credibility concerns’ because of ‘inconsistencies’ between the individual’s statements and documents they obtained as part of the investigation.
Click to expand...

Lmao.

Do you think they would admit there was evidence?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#28
#28
AM64 said:
I think the voter problem goes way beyond ethics. Most need a real injection of plain ole common sense and enough intellect to allow thought and reason. As far as wisdom, the only hope is moving the minimum voting age to something like 40 because constant immersion in social media (permanent pinging of the same stupid thoughts back and forth) is dumbing down the whole herd.
Click to expand...

Agree.
 
#30
#30
Mick said:
Justice Department officials, in a December briefing to House oversight committee staff, reportedly said that “the whistleblower had offered no evidence about Clinton” and that they “began to have ‘serious credibility concerns’ because of ‘inconsistencies’ between the individual’s statements and documents they obtained as part of the investigation.
Click to expand...

So Schiff was behind that quote, ummmm, red flag right there.

Again thrown outta context by Mother Jones (Steele's favorite leak smear site)/ Media Matters (David Brock's smear aficionado syndicate)...prior to his testimony yesterday...when written 2 days AGO, “Rather than jumping to conclusions based on third party accounts about what the witness might offer,” wrote Gowdy, “I will reserve judgment until we hear directly from him tomorrow.”

I gotta give'm this, they are slick re-directors.

Now when he gave testimony yesterday...the comment was 'he's just trying to take away and discredit the Russia investigation into Trump'....LOL, GOOD STUFF.
 
#31
#31
Vol0725 said:
So Schiff was behind that quote, ummmm, red flag right there.

Again thrown outta context by Mother Jones (Steele's favorite leak smear site)/ Media Matters (David Brock's smear aficionado syndicate)...prior to his testimony yesterday...when written 2 days AGO, “Rather than jumping to conclusions based on third party accounts about what the witness might offer,” wrote Gowdy, “I will reserve judgment until we hear directly from him tomorrow.”

I gotta give'm this, they are slick re-directors.

Now when he gave testimony yesterday...the comment was 'he's just trying to take away and discredit the Russia investigation into Trump'....LOL, GOOD STUFF.
Click to expand...

Gowdy? What has he said about the bombshell of the informants testimony? That's right, nothing. The informant was walked from committee to committee and escorted out.

Uranium One informant makes Clinton allegations to Congress | TheHill
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#32
#32
Mick said:
Gowdy? What has he said about the bombshell of the informants testimony? That's right, nothing. The informant was walked from committee to committee and escorted out.

Uranium One informant makes Clinton allegations to Congress | TheHill
Click to expand...

You either believe the FBI informants attorney, or you don't...could really care a less.


Victoria Toensing, the attorney representing the FBI informant, said there's "on-the-record quid pro quo" (recordings and tapes) surrounding the deal, with Bill Clinton receiving a $500,000 speaking fee from a Russian bank and the Clinton Foundation getting tens of millions of dollars from people interested in the Uranium One deal.

"My client can put some meat on those bones and tell you what the Russians were saying during that time," Toensing said.

Bill Hemmer said this all sounds "nefarious," but he asked if any of this is actually illegal.

"To pay bribes and kickbacks? Yes! It certainly is," Toensing said. "The other thing that's against the law is the quid pro quo of whether the Clintons benefited - and we know that they did. And that would be up for a jury to look at it and say, 'Well, was there evil intent?'"
 
#33
#33
He had his chance to "put some meat on those bones". One would think we'd have heard about it by now, no?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#36
#36
The question is...why sell 20% of our Uranium supply in the first place? Makes no logical sense.

"It's hard to imagine something larger than a sale of 20 percent of our uranium, when we have laws on the book right now that say America must be self-reliant on uranium. We must not import it from anybody else and Hillary Clinton approved the sale of uranium as her husband got half a million dollars speaking fee. It's just the tip of the iceberg. These things take time. Rest assured, justice will be done." Dr. Sebastian Gorka


[twitter]965987071675502592[/twitter]
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#37
#37
The more you peal back this Uranium One deal, it gets even more rancid...

[twitter]966366469125754893[/twitter]
 
#39
#39
Franklin Pierce said:
The premier Terrorist nation in the world receives $150 BILLION from the Obama regime.

Surely this was a great idea.
Click to expand...


Uranium One 'might be' tied to Iran.

Uranium One Deal: Obama Administration Complicit, Not Just | National Review

Keeping Congress in the Dark

Meanwhile, congressional opposition to Russia’s potential acquisition of American uranium resources began to stir. As Peter Schweizer noted in his essential book, Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich, four senior House members steeped in national-security issues — Peter King (R., N.Y.), Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R., Fla.), Spencer Bachus (R., Ala.), and Howard McKeon (R. Calif.) — voiced grave concerns, pointing out that Rosatom had helped Iran, America’s sworn enemy, build its Bushehr nuclear reactor. The members concluded that “the take-over of essential US nuclear resources by a government-owned Russian agency . . . would not advance the national security interests of the United States.” Republican senator John Barrasso objected to Kremlin control of uranium assets in his state of Wyoming, warning of Russia’s “disturbing record of supporting nuclear programs in countries that are openly hostile to the United States, specifically Iran and Venezuela.” The House began moving a bill “expressing disfavor of the Congress” regarding Obama’s revival of the nuclear-cooperation agreement Bush had abandoned.

Clearly, in this atmosphere, disclosure of the racketeering enterprise that Rosatom’s American subsidiary was, at that very moment, carrying out would have been the death knell of the asset transfer to Russia. It would also likely have ended the “reset” initiative in which Obama and Clinton were deeply invested — an agenda that contemplated Kremlin-friendly deals on nuclear-arms control and accommodation of the nuclear program of Russia’s ally, Iran. That was not going to be allowed to happen. It appears that no disclosure of Russia’s racketeering and strong-arming was made to CFIUS or to Congress — not by Secretary Clinton, not by Attorney General Holder, and certainly not by President Obama. In October 2010, CFIUS gave its blessing to Rosatom’s acquisition of Uranium One.


It's no secret...the Clinton's and their foundation raked in a cool $145 million in donations and "speaking fees" just from Uranium One- and Rosatom-affiliated donors while Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was supposedly keeping all Clinton Foundation business at "arm's-length."

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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#41
#41
#42
#42
#43
#43
evillawyer said:
You guys ready to throw the towel in on uranium one yet? Evidently the ballyhooed whistleblower didn't have the goods. Don't fret though, I'm sure Papa Bear Hannity will cook up some new conspiracy theories next week for you guys to wet yourself over.

Democrats say Uranium One whistleblower provided no evidence against Clintons - CNNPolitics
Click to expand...

Why do you link them? Is it reported elsewhere?

Please link places that haven’t been busted pushing and manufacturing fake news...

And do you actually think the Dems would come out and say “ yeah, they ****ed up, damn”.
 
#44
#44
Again, if we sold uranium rights, which no one is denying, all of the people involved need to explain why or go to jail. The bribes are a secondary issue to me.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#45
#45
Obsessed said:
Why do you link them? Is it reported elsewhere?

Please link places that haven’t been busted pushing and manufacturing fake news...

And do you actually think the Dems would come out and say “ yeah, they ****ed up, damn”.
Click to expand...

Wow, you guys really do suckle off the man-teets of our president, don't you?
 
#46
#46
The title of the link is great.

In other news.

Republicans say Trump is really a great guy that doesn't stick his foot in his mouth
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#49
#49
1972 Grad said:
When we aren't enjoying the salty taste of liberal tears.
Click to expand...

Just be sure you're not confusing tears for other salty bodily fluids, because it seems like the Dems are anything but crying over this conspiracy theory flame-out.

Below is a link to a story that contains the full interview summary at the end. Dems wanted to release the full transcript of the interview, but Republicans wouldn't let them.

Dems: Uranium One informant provided 'no evidence' of Clinton 'quid pro quo' | TheHill
 
#50
#50
evillawyer said:
You guys ready to throw the towel in on uranium one yet? Evidently the ballyhooed whistleblower didn't have the goods. Don't fret though, I'm sure Papa Bear Hannity will cook up some new conspiracy theories next week for you guys to wet yourself over.

Democrats say Uranium One whistleblower provided no evidence against Clintons - CNNPolitics
Click to expand...

Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation Amid Russian Uranium Deal

"As the Russians gradually assumed control of Uranium One in three separate transactions from 2009 to 2013, Canadian records show, a flow of cash made its way to the Clinton Foundation. Uranium One’s chairman used his family foundation to make four donations totaling $2.35 million. Those contributions were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons, despite an agreement Mrs. Clinton had struck with the Obama White House to publicly identify all donors"
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top