It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Evidence on Trumps Collusion with Russia vs Clinton pay for play Uranium scandal

page: 2
15
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 14 2017 @ 03:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Doctor Smith

Ask the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.


Don't have time to solve the riddle. Have an article or video from a reliable source?




posted on May, 14 2017 @ 03:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: Doctor Smith

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Doctor Smith

Ask the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.


Don't have time to solve the riddle. Have an article or video from a reliable source?


You're complaining about the Uranium One "deal" yet you don't seem to know much about it.

Perhaps Wikipedia?



posted on May, 14 2017 @ 03:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Doctor Smith

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Doctor Smith

Ask the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.


Don't have time to solve the riddle. Have an article or video from a reliable source?


You're complaining about the Uranium One "deal" yet you don't seem to know much about it.

Perhaps Wikipedia?


I might not know much about it. But you don't seem to know anything about it. And haven't brought any information to the table.



posted on May, 14 2017 @ 03:55 AM
link   
a reply to: Doctor Smith

No information?

What are you responding to then?

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission signed off on the merger you seem so upset about, it had nothing to do with Hillary.

Now, there, those nasty facts are dealt with ... you can get back to your carping about Clinton.



posted on May, 14 2017 @ 05:07 AM
link   
a reply to: Doctor Smith

Big difference: One is the elected Leader of the most powerful nation on earth, the other is a cranky old biatch.



posted on May, 14 2017 @ 08:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Doctor Smith

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Doctor Smith

If you are talking about Hillary and the Uranium One deal, that issue has been completely taken out of context.

It was a deal for Russia to buy controlling share of a Canadian company that had operations in the US. None of the uranium was allowed to be exported and the deal was approved by 8 other federal agency leaders.

As far as Trump, I'd rather wait and see what comes out of the investigations.


If you say the Clinton's are innocent. It must be true.


I did not say they were innocent. I said the Uranium One deal has been taken out of context and no evidence has been presented to even suggest Clinton did anything shady in regards to that deal.


Except for the donations made to the Clinton foundation before and after the sale went through. Donations, might I add, that were left off the Clinton Foundation reporting. It was one of the "corrections" that had to be made to their tax filings.

So the Clinton foundation gets donations, Hillary, as SecState, signs off on the deal, and more donations are given to the foundation once the sale / transfer is complete.



And bill gets 500k for a speech to a russian bank.




posted on May, 14 2017 @ 10:03 AM
link   
a reply to: introvert

So your saying if Clinton did not know the uranium deal would turn out the way it did then Russia basically took her to the cleaners. Another good reason she should not have been in office.

I think she knew.

I guess its plausible that a bunch of coincidences with money and the process. Then in the end the Russians did work and manipulated the sale to achieve what they did.

There should be a limit to these shady cowinkydinks. Others I might buy a coincident or 2. Clintons have thousands on thousands is the problem.


edit on 14-5-2017 by randomthoughts12 because: typo



posted on May, 14 2017 @ 11:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Doctor Smith

No information?

What are you responding to then?

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission signed off on the merger you seem so upset about, it had nothing to do with Hillary.

Now, there, those nasty facts are dealt with ... you can get back to your carping about Clinton.


Not only the Secretary of State at that time Hillary Clinton signed off on it. Of course others like the The Nuclear Regulatory Commission signed off on it. What's your point? The Clinton's are always involved enriching themselves at the cost of National Security.
Yet we're suppose to be up in arms about some fabrication of what Trump may have done.

Do you work for the Clinton's?
edit on 14-5-2017 by Doctor Smith because: forgot comma



posted on May, 14 2017 @ 07:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: Doctor Smith

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Doctor Smith

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Doctor Smith

If you are talking about Hillary and the Uranium One deal, that issue has been completely taken out of context.

It was a deal for Russia to buy controlling share of a Canadian company that had operations in the US. None of the uranium was allowed to be exported and the deal was approved by 8 other federal agency leaders.

As far as Trump, I'd rather wait and see what comes out of the investigations.


If you say the Clinton's are innocent. It must be true.


I did not say they were innocent. I said the Uranium One deal has been taken out of context and no evidence has been presented to even suggest Clinton did anything shady in regards to that deal.


How was it taken out of context? They just gave over 100 million to the Clinton foundation out of kindness? Then all the deals went through. Just a coincidence? That's what you believe?


Whom gave the money to the CF? Be specific.

Is it also coincidence that Hillary and the others that "approved" the deal were not in a position to actually approve it? The panel was only playing an advisory role, as I understand it, and the final decision was not up to the panel.

The deal was approved by numerous entities, including the Canadian government.

There is a lot more context to this issue that you and others are not presenting.



posted on May, 14 2017 @ 11:26 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

What you are failing to mention is that a "Russian atomic energy agency, Rosatom, had taken over a Canadian company with uranium-mining stakes."


the Russian atomic energy agency, Rosatom, had taken over a Canadian company with uranium-mining stakes stretching from Central Asia to the American West. The deal made Rosatom one of the world’s largest uranium producers and brought Mr. Putin closer to his goal of controlling much of the global uranium supply chain.

www.nytimes.com...

You also fail to mention that some leaders of the Canadian mining industry were palsy-walsy with the Clintons and conspired with the Russians to form a uranium company, which Russia eventually bought.


leaders of the Canadian mining industry, who have been major donors to the charitable endeavors of former President Bill Clinton and his family. Members of that group built, financed and eventually sold off to the Russians a company that would become known as Uranium One.

www.nytimes.com...

Uranium One turned out to be quite lucrative for the Russians. Also, it's not important that the deal "was approved by numerous entities, including the Canadian government." It IS important that the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States approved this deal. Who was a key member of this Committee?


The committee comprises some of the most powerful members of the Cabinet, including the attorney general, the secretaries of the Treasury, Defense, Homeland Security, Commerce and Energy, and the secretary of state. They are charged with reviewing any deal that could result in foreign control of a U.S. business or asset deemed important to national security.



The ultimate authority to approve or reject the Russian acquisition rested with the Cabinet officials on the foreign investment committee, including Hillary Clinton — whose husband was collecting millions in donations from people associated with Uranium One.

www.startribune.com...

From the New York Times Article:


the sale gave the Russians control of one-fifth of all uranium production capacity in the United States. Since uranium is considered a strategic asset, with implications for national security, the deal had to be approved by a committee composed of representatives from a number of United States government agencies. Among the agencies that eventually signed off was the State Department, then headed by Mr. Clinton’s wife, Hillary Rodham Clinton.



Still, the ultimate authority to approve or reject the Russian acquisition rested with the cabinet officials on the foreign investment committee, including Mrs. Clinton — whose husband was collecting millions in donations from people associated with Uranium One.

www.nytimes.com...

Oh, as far as "Whom gave the money to the CF? Be specific." OK, I'll try:


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. Other people with ties to the company made donations as well.

www.nytimes.com...


the only Uranium One official to give to the Clinton Foundation was Telfer, the chairman, and the amount was relatively small: no more than $250,000, and that was in 2007, before talk of a Rosatom deal began percolating. But a review of tax records in Canada, where Telfer has a family charity called the Fernwood Foundation, shows that he donated millions of dollars more, during and after the critical time when the foreign investment committee was reviewing his deal with the Russians.



Telfer’s undisclosed donations came in addition to between $1.3 million and $5.6 million in contributions, which were reported, from a constellation of people with ties to Uranium One or UrAsia, the company that originally acquired Uranium One’s most valuable asset: the Kazakh mines. Amid this influx of Uranium One-connected money, Bill Clinton was invited to speak in Moscow in June 2010, the same month Rosatom struck its deal for a majority stake in Uranium One. The $500,000 fee was paid by Renaissance Capital, a Russian investment bank with ties to the Kremlin.

www.startribune.com...

You stated: "no evidence has been presented to even suggest Clinton did anything shady in regards to that deal." I beg to differ.



posted on May, 14 2017 @ 11:38 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert





Whom gave the money to the CF? Be specific.


Donations to the Clinton Foundation, and a Russian Uranium Takeover (timeline)



posted on May, 15 2017 @ 05:34 PM
link   
a reply to: Doctor Smith
This stuff is why I call the lamestream media "Parrots on the Payroll" and the libtards... well you know



posted on May, 15 2017 @ 10:24 PM
link   
Since the WannaCry attack against the Russian Interior Ministry has failed, it appears that the commies are in a renewed garbage attack against the US administration.



new topics

top topics



 
15
<< 1   >>

log in

join