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.

 

Nunez Announces Uranium One Probe

page: 1
15
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 24 2017 @ 11:09 AM
link   
Well there you have it. Rep. Devin Nunez has just held an impromptu press briefing where he announced a new probe into the events surrounding the CFIUS approval of the Rosatom deal to purchase a 51% stake in Canadian company, Uranium One, to be carried out by the House Intel committee.

According to Nunez what they're primarily interested in is:

"Whether or not there was an FBI investigation, was there was a DOJ investigation and if so, why was Congress not informed of this matter?"

Edit to add:

This probe actually involves two committees, the other one being the House Oversight committee headed by Trey Gowdy.

Edit 2:

Here's a source.

Politico - Two GOP-led panels launch probe of Obama-era uranium deal


Two more Republican-led congressional committees will probe the Obama administration’s decision to approve the sale of American uranium production capability to a Russian state-run energy conglomerate, a key GOP lawmaker announced Tuesday.

Rep. Devin Nunes, chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, said he’d be linking up with the House Oversight panel led by Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.). The Senate Judiciary Committee has already said it would investigate the uranium deal.



edit on 2017-10-24 by theantediluvian because: (no reason given)




posted on Oct, 24 2017 @ 11:11 AM
link   
Isn't he ONE of the people Paul Ryan said Russia is paying?



posted on Oct, 24 2017 @ 11:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: DanteGaland
Isn't he ONE of the people Paul Ryan said Russia is paying?


No, I don't believe so but he's arguably a clown and a Trump lapdog.
edit on 2017-10-24 by theantediluvian because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 24 2017 @ 11:17 AM
link   
There should be an investigation into this.

I think that anyone truly interested in getting to the bottom of all Russian influence would agree.


+7 more 
posted on Oct, 24 2017 @ 11:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: theantediluvian
"Whether or not there was an FBI investigation, was there was a DOJ investigation and if so, why was Congress not informed of this matter?"


Can't wait to have Mueller receiving subpoena to clarify his delivery of uranium to Moscow when he was head of FBI.




posted on Oct, 24 2017 @ 11:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: theultimatebelgianjoke

originally posted by: theantediluvian
"Whether or not there was an FBI investigation, was there was a DOJ investigation and if so, why was Congress not informed of this matter?"


Can't wait to have Mueller receiving subpoena to clarify his delivery of uranium to Moscow when he was head of FBI.



I have to say I looked into this, and honestly to me it seemed like there were accusations of Uranium stolen or something, and Mueller was merely taking a small sampled to Russia to see if this was some of the stolen material.

I don't think this has anything to do with Uranium One.

However, I do believe Mueller should be asked questions about what he knew about the investigation involving people in the uranium one deal, and when did he know it, and why he didn't inform members of congress.



posted on Oct, 24 2017 @ 11:25 AM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

But dude, they only wanted to make it look like the Trump campaign conspired and colluded with the Russians to steal the election from Clinton.

Everything else is just baloney.

You can buy a lot of baloney with $140 million. And perhaps access to as much as 20% of US uranium.

All perfectly legal, anyone, including confidential informants under gag order are all full of baloney.

There's no there there, except with Trump, of course.




posted on Oct, 24 2017 @ 11:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler
There should be an investigation into this.

I think that anyone truly interested in getting to the bottom of all Russian influence would agree.



I'm not opposed to it but Nunez should have no parts in anything. His mishandling of the House Intel committee probe into Russian meddling in the election was epic.

Imo, it'll go nowhere. If the thrust is going to be the circumstances of the Mikerin investigation, it'll ultimately prove fruitless.

If they wanted to go after Clinton for something involving Uranium One, they should be investigating the dispatch of an envoy in Kazakhstan at the request of a Canadian business. That's got the biggest stink of quid pro quo.

Instead, they're going to try to make it about Russia.

Thankfully, as Republicans Trump supporters have assured us incessantly, Russian meddling/influence isn't a real thing and even it is, we deserve it and also, it's not a big deal.


edit on 2017-10-24 by theantediluvian because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 24 2017 @ 11:32 AM
link   
a reply to: Grambler
Mueller definitely needs to be questioned about who he told (or didn't tell), and when. And since he's now a witness in this investigation, he needs to recuse himself from it.



posted on Oct, 24 2017 @ 11:35 AM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

Do these Committees ever actual bring down the hammer, or do they just provide "suggestions" based on what their investigations/hearings determine?

I ask specifically because the House Oversight Committee also found Eric Holder (Attorney General under Obama Admin.) to be responsible for misleading congress, and he was held in Contempt, yet Democrats (and the public in general) seem to like to praise Holder for being an oh-so-great Guy!

www.theblaze.com...< br />
Do we have any examples of anything coming of the House Oversight Committee's determinations?



posted on Oct, 24 2017 @ 11:39 AM
link   
a reply to: FamCore




Do we have any examples of anything coming of the House Oversight Committee's determinations?
I think Trey Gowdy determined that Judical Watch could access information that they couldn't and that there was something wrong with that .



posted on Oct, 24 2017 @ 11:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: theantediluvian

originally posted by: Grambler
There should be an investigation into this.

I think that anyone truly interested in getting to the bottom of all Russian influence would agree.



I'm not opposed to it but Nunez should have no parts in anything. His mishandling of the House Intel committee probe into Russian meddling in the election was epic.

Imo, it'll go nowhere. If the thrust is going to be the circumstances of the Mikerin investigation, it'll ultimately prove fruitless.

If they wanted to go after Clinton for something involving Uranium One, they should be investigating the dispatch of an envoy in Kazakhstan at the request of a Canadian business. That's got the biggest stink of quid pro quo.

Instead, they're going to try to make it about Russia.

Thankfully, as Republicans Trump supporters have assured us incessantly, Russian meddling/influence isn't a real thing and even it is, we deserve it and also, it's not a big deal.



If russia hacked the emails, that is a big deal. Not that it changed the election, but hacking of that level is not a big deal.

Pokemon and facebook or RT, this is a joke given the magnitude of money and media that favored Hillary.

Aside from the election, Russia or any country paying politicians or perspective politicians for favorable political decsions is a big deal, rather done by Hillary or Trump or anyone else.

Hence this is a big deal.

As far as Nunez being involved, I wouldnt mind seeing someone else do the investigation.

But this pales in comparison to Lynch not reccusing herself from the email investigation.

And seeing as how there is a solid chance Mueller will be called on in this investigation involving Russia and possible wrong doing, doesn't this raise questions to you about his ability to be impartial in his investigation?

Why does it seem like the only times people are forced to reccuse its only republicans?



posted on Oct, 24 2017 @ 11:41 AM
link   
a reply to: ausername

Here's the fundamental problem:


You can buy a lot of baloney with $140 million. And perhaps access to as much as 20% of US uranium.


99% of the money was donated to the Clinton Foundation prior to 2008 and the guy responsible for most of it, Frank Giustra, sold all of his stock and departed the company in 2007 when his company, UrAsia Energy, merged with the South African company, Uranium One.

This was two years prior to Rosatom's initial purchase of 17% of Uranium One and three years prior to the CFIUS approved deal. IIRC, it also precedes the purchase of the US mines, which was done by Uranium One.

There was no financial gain in it for Giustra. In fact, Giustra reportedly netted a total of $45 million from his sale of stock in 2007. In a quid pro quo scheme, that would put him at a negative $90 million+. So that doesn't really seem to make much sense even without considering that the donations occurred years before the deal in question.

So saying "$140 million" repeatedly is of questionable utility.



posted on Oct, 24 2017 @ 11:41 AM
link   
Not like Republicans to go on a public funded witch hunt to try and deflect from their own issues.



posted on Oct, 24 2017 @ 11:55 AM
link   
a reply to: Grambler


Pokemon and facebook or RT, this is a joke given the magnitude of money and media that favored Hillary.


Every time you say "Pokemon" I roll my eyes because you're being disingenuous in your effort to be dismissive. How much something costs isn't a measure of the seriousness of the threat. In fact, I would argue that the fact that it's so cheap to run a troll farm points to it being a bigger threat as it's not just Russia that can wield this sort of asymmetric information warfare strategy to disproportionate effect.

Put another way, if a nuke cost $5 it would be an even bigger threat.

You don't tweet do you? If you did, you'd recognize @TEN_GOP from the election. I think you're way too quick to dismiss the threat because it's new and it's being done over the Internet. I think that's a serious mistake. Popular social media accounts have a lot of influence with people on those platforms. They drive conversations, they push narratives and they're conduits to propaganda.


As far as Nunez being involved, I wouldnt mind seeing someone else do the investigation.


I trust in Trey Gowdy's integrity way more than I do Nunez's.


But this pales in comparison to Lynch not reccusing herself from the email investigation.


I wouldn't go that far. Nunez was called to a secret meeting at the WH where he was spoon fed the failed "unmasking" narrative which he then used in an attempt to tank the investigation he was supposed to be overseeing.


And seeing as how there is a solid chance Mueller will be called on in this investigation involving Russia and possible wrong doing, doesn't this raise questions to you about his ability to be impartial in his investigation?


Isn't that exactly the sort of question launching this probe might be intended to engender? Do you want to see the Mueller investigation derailed?



posted on Oct, 24 2017 @ 11:55 AM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

But that doesnt really look at the big scope of things.

When Giustra was giving all of that money, who was the favorite to be President, or at least the democratic nominee, in 2008?

If the argument is that this money couldnt have been shady because Hillary was not SoS when it was given, by the same token no moneys or favors given to Trump by Russia before he was president can be questioned.

Giustra was probably no doubt friends with those that did benefit from the Uranium One deal, and he certainly was aligned with Russian state interests on that deal.

And this also ignores that there was still alot of money (millions) given by others who were still involved with the deal, and they gave that money while Hillary was SoS.



posted on Oct, 24 2017 @ 12:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: Grambler


Pokemon and facebook or RT, this is a joke given the magnitude of money and media that favored Hillary.


Every time you say "Pokemon" I roll my eyes because you're being disingenuous in your effort to be dismissive. How much something costs isn't a measure of the seriousness of the threat. In fact, I would argue that the fact that it's so cheap to run a troll farm points to it being a bigger threat as it's not just Russia that can wield this sort of asymmetric information warfare strategy to disproportionate effect.

Put another way, if a nuke cost $5 it would be an even bigger threat.

You don't tweet do you? If you did, you'd recognize @TEN_GOP from the election. I think you're way too quick to dismiss the threat because it's new and it's being done over the Internet. I think that's a serious mistake. Popular social media accounts have a lot of influence with people on those platforms. They drive conversations, they push narratives and they're conduits to propaganda.


Nope sorry, not buying it.

Anyone can use Twitter and Facebook. Hell, hillary was accused of having over a million twitter bots. Does that mean we need a all hands on deck investigation there?

This is all garbage. You can spin it anyone you want. Show me anyone who says Russia facebook was more effective than billions of dollars spent by Hillary, or that it changed the outcome of the election.

If Facebook is so much more effective, why are people still invested in MSM? Why not spend 1/100th the money and use Facebook and pokemon.

And whats your proposed solution; is it just Russia that can't use Facebook? Should we have government people investigating that no one is spreading any message they disapprove of?

Its just another weak attempt to cast blame on something, anything, to show why hillary lost.



I trust in Trey Gowdy's integrity way more than I do Nunez's.


Agreed.




I wouldn't go that far. Nunez was called to a secret meeting at the WH where he was spoon fed the failed "unmasking" narrative which he then used in an attempt to tank the investigation he was supposed to be overseeing.


Wow.

Lynch literally met in secret with the husband of the person she was investigating.

The unmasking only failed in that Hillarys MSM allies were able to distract enough from it.

But hey, maybe we will get lucky and Nunez and others will survey and unmask many democrats and leak all of that info out to the press.

Then we can see if people feel the same way that this is no big deal.

But having said that, I do agree I would like to see someone other than Nunez.




Isn't that exactly the sort of question launching this probe might be intended to engender? Do you want to see the Mueller investigation derailed?


I want a fare investigation.

Would you want someone that was a witness in Muellers investigation such as Trump Jr. or Sessions leading the investigation into Uranium One? Much like Mueller, they could hire a bunch of prosecutors that donated to Trump to investigate this, that would be ok right?

Of course not.

So what is your suggestion, that even if this investigation shows some wrong doing or bias by Mueller, he still be allowed to continue?

This is why someone truly independent person should have been picked, not Mueller.



posted on Oct, 24 2017 @ 12:10 PM
link   
a reply to: theultimatebelgianjoke

What's there to clarify? Unless one is willfully ignorant, the truth is out there. Mueller delivered a sample of enriched uranium that was taken from Georgian smugglers to Russian authorities for analysis.



posted on Oct, 24 2017 @ 12:12 PM
link   
If there was bribery and kickbacks prior to the sale, and an informant wanted to speak to congress about it but was told not to, yea there should be an investigation.

At the moment it certainly looks like a cover-up so the sale did not get derailed, it should be checked out and verified.



posted on Oct, 24 2017 @ 12:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: Irishhaf
If there was bribery and kickbacks prior to the sale, and an informant wanted to speak to congress about it but was told not to, yea there should be an investigation.

At the moment it certainly looks like a cover-up so the sale did not get derailed, it should be checked out and verified.


The bribery and kickbacks were connected to a subsidiary in the US that received a no-bid shipping contract.

It really has nothing to do with the sale.

And if I am not mistaken, the "informant" had a NDA with the FBI because the FBI played a role in facilitating the bribery scheme.



new topics

top topics



 
15
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join