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.

 

Don Jr. Proved Correct About Meeting With Russian Lawyer, Memo Obtained.

page: 8
38
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 17 2017 @ 11:39 AM
link   
a reply to: TrueBrit

It doesn't work that way. If I intend to murder you, I am charged with no crime. I only get charged if I do murder you or attempt to do so physically.




posted on Oct, 17 2017 @ 11:42 AM
link   
Quickly, it seems that, updated from 2015 to August 2017, Uranium One's holdings are basically either defunct or are being sold ...



The Nuclear Regulatory Commission issued a licence to Uranium One Americas for Moore Ranch in October 2010, to start production in 2012, but development is suspended. Uranium One’s additional projects in the Powder River Basin, including Ludeman, Allemand-Ross, Barge (1770 tU), Pine Tree and Ross Flats could also be developed as satellite operations with final processing through the Irigaray central plant. Uranium One has some 4000 tU as measured resources (2235 t at Moore Ranch) and 23,000 tU as indicated resources in the state. Ludeman is quoted with 4200 tU total resources (NI 43-101).

It also had plans for production from Antelope and JAB in the Great Divide Basin, but these were deferred due to endangered species concerns.Uranium One deposits in the Great Divide Basin of Wyoming are Antelope, JAB, Twin Buttes, Crooks Creek, Bull Springs, Stewart Creek, Cyclone Rim and West JAB.

In 2016 Uranium One sold 24 Wyoming properties in the Black Hills, Powder River Basin, Great Divide Basin, Laramie Basin, Shirley Basin and Wind River Basin areas to Anfield Resources for $6.55 million. In 2010, Uranium One sold a number of Utah and Colorado claims and two Utah leases, including the Sage mine, to Colorado Plateau Partners (CPP), a joint venture between Energy Fuels Inc of Toronto (see EFRC above) and Royal Resources Ltd of Australia.


US Uranium Mining and Exploration - World Nuclear Association

Still no evidence of any uranium being shipped out of the country for anything other than refinement in Canada however.

/shrug
edit on 17-10-2017 by Gryphon66 because: Noted



posted on Oct, 17 2017 @ 11:44 AM
link   
a reply to: Vasa Croe

It went to Canada for refinement. This is not news. Uranium One is actually based in Toronto.

If you find anything substantiating Ms. Wichers' statement, be sure and drop me a PM.

By the by, since you're so enamored with the 2015 NYT article ... you might run the reference on RSB Logistic Services ... for example, here is the NRC's approval of their Export License, which clearly states:



PDF for your reference here: nrc.gov
edit on 17-10-2017 by Gryphon66 because: Noted



posted on Oct, 17 2017 @ 11:52 AM
link   
a reply to: TrueBrit

I love the legal analysis. The truth is, it wouldn't have mattered if he paid for it. The first amendment trumps campaign finance law, see citizens united.



posted on Oct, 17 2017 @ 11:55 AM
link   
a reply to: Dfairlite

That's right. Trump is a person. He may buy anything in his own name rather than in the name of his campaign.



posted on Oct, 17 2017 @ 11:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: TrueBrit

I love the legal analysis. The truth is, it wouldn't have mattered if he paid for it. The first amendment trumps campaign finance law, see citizens united.


How does the First Amendment make it okay to collude with Foreign Nationals in order to influence our General Election again?



posted on Oct, 17 2017 @ 12:08 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Define collusion and define influence. These are not legally precise terms.



posted on Oct, 17 2017 @ 12:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: themold
a reply to: Gryphon66

Define collusion and define influence. These are not legally precise terms.


I'm not an attorney and this isn't a court. Look 'em up.



posted on Oct, 17 2017 @ 12:13 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

The whole freedom of speech, association, and press part.



posted on Oct, 17 2017 @ 12:14 PM
link   
a reply to: TrueBrit

So why has no one brought him up on the charges...why doesn't the house investigate...why does nothing happen. Its not like the people investigating are his buddies or anything. From all the research I did on this when it first came out, opinions on this by legal experts even, it was generally accepted that the law you're saying he broke isn't actually applicable here. Let me quote you one of the top reasons it wouldn't be...and maybe we can all finally put this to bed.



Consider the implications of such an unprecedented extension of the criminal code. The sharing of information — even possible criminal conduct by a leading political figure — would be treated the same as accepting cash. It would constitute a major threat to free speech, the free press and the right of association. It would also expose a broad spectrum of political speech to possible criminal prosecution.

Executive branch officials could then investigate campaigns on any meetings where information or tips might have originated from a foreign source. Such an expansion would likely hit challengers the hardest, since sitting presidents not only control the Justice Department but the government has a myriad of back channels in communicating with foreign officials.



Source



posted on Oct, 17 2017 @ 12:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: Gryphon66

The whole freedom of speech, association, and press part.


None of that allows any American to break our laws.



posted on Oct, 17 2017 @ 12:16 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Ummm yeah, it does, the constitution supersedes any law we pass. If the law infringes on those rights, it's not a constitutional law.

See ricky's most recent post above. it explains it succinctly.
edit on 17-10-2017 by Dfairlite because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 17 2017 @ 12:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: Gryphon66

Ummm yeah, it does, the constitution supersedes any law we pass. If the law infringes on those rights, it's not a constitutional law.


Ummm ... no it doesn't. Your claim is that the First allows Donald Trump etc. to do whatever they want to in collusion with foreign agents. There is nothing in the First that does that. You realize that now I guess, since you're doing the song-and-dance to try to muddle the issue.

Are any of the campaign finance laws mentioned here declared unconstitutional? Are any under consideration before any court in the land for being so?

No?

Sell that BS elsewhere.



posted on Oct, 17 2017 @ 12:23 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66


. Your claim is that the First allows Donald Trump etc. to do whatever they want to in collusion with foreign agents.


No, my claim is that the first amendment allows this specific meeting and even the purchase of dirt on political opponents from a foreign government agent who offers it.
edit on 17-10-2017 by Dfairlite because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 17 2017 @ 12:26 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66


Are any of the campaign finance laws mentioned here declared unconstitutional?


Well they'd have to be challenged first. Which isn't going to happen because they're not going to bring any campaign finance violations against Jr. for this meeting.



posted on Oct, 17 2017 @ 12:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: Gryphon66


. Your claim is that the First allows Donald Trump etc. to do whatever they want to in collusion with foreign agents.


No, my claim is that the first amendment allows this specific meeting and even the purchase of dirt on political opponents from a foreign government who offers it.


Allowing the meeting? Perhaps, although that's not really covered under the assembly/association provision. Trump can' meet with whomever he wants that's not involved in illegal enterprises. That's just ... a natural right.

There's certainly nothing in the First that allows "dirt" to be purchased from Russian agents.



posted on Oct, 17 2017 @ 12:28 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

How do you think the pissgate dossier came to be? It was information purchased from russian agents.



posted on Oct, 17 2017 @ 12:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: Gryphon66


Are any of the campaign finance laws mentioned here declared unconstitutional?


Well they'd have to be challenged first. Which isn't going to happen because they're not going to bring any campaign finance violations against Jr. for this meeting.


The answer is no then in regard to your smoke-screen regarding the Constitutionality of the meeting.

Fair enough. I doubt any charges will be brought against little Trump either ... but there's no doubt that he tried to collude with Russian agents to affect the Election ... which is of course what all of you have been screaming denial over for months.



posted on Oct, 17 2017 @ 12:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: Gryphon66

How do you think the pissgate dossier came to be? It was information purchased from russian agents.


Weren't you questioning the existence of the dossier just the other day?

Who bought it? From whom? When? Where's the evidence?



posted on Oct, 17 2017 @ 12:31 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

I don't think I've ever questioned it's existence (didn't buzzfeed publish it?). John mccain (and others) bought it from fusion GPS, who bought their information from russian agents.
edit on 17-10-2017 by Dfairlite because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
38
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join