Nunez Announces Uranium One Probe

a reply to: introvert

And?

Congress has the ability to be read in on just about anything going on in our country, if the guy actually had pertinent information they should have been read in.

originally posted by: theantediluvian



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.

Fortunately you don't have any say or influence over Nunes job.

Your constant woodpecker tactics have drilled a little hole
on the little branch you live on, but that's as far as your
going to go.

It is beyond curious why you have such an interest in him.

a reply to: Grambler

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?

Well the first $30+ million was given in what? 2005 or 2006? The $100 million pledge was in 2007 and coincided with another super wealthy philanthropist making an identical pledge.

Giustra, Slim donate $100-million each to Clinton Foundation

Former U.S. president Bill Clinton has teamed with a reclusive Vancouver mining financier and a Mexican billionaire to create a massive charitable effort that will see the mining industry channel funds to fight poverty in areas affected by the resource sector.

Frank Giustra, who has made millions for himself and investors financing mining deals, has pledged $100-million (U.S) and half of all his future earnings from the mining business towards the Clinton Giustra Sustainable Growth Initiative (CGSGI). Carlos Slim Helu, a Mexican billionaire who made his fortune in the telecom industry has also committed $100-million towards the effort, which will initially focus on alleviating poverty and fostering growth in Latin America.

To prove quid pro quo, you need to demonstrate that something was given with an expectation of something else being provided in return. The timing is one issue but there are other significant questions:

1. How did the Clintons directly benefit from the donations to the Clinton Foundation? If all of the money collected went to funding philanthropic projects, what's the alleged motive on the part of the Clintons? Corruption as a means to funding charity? That's a really tough sell. It also happens to be something that is always overlooked in Clinton Foundation CTs. Is giving to the CF the same thing as giving to the Clintons? There's been no evidence of them embezzling money or self-dealing from the CF funds that I've ever heard of.

That's not to say their motivations were pure. Personally, I think that for them, the CF has been a vehicle for creating continued influence but how can you prove that and even if you could, it's not illegal to run a charity to be influential. So as a motivation in a case for quid pro quo, it's decidedly lacking.

2. What did Frank Giustra stand to gain from the arrangement? He divested his stock in 2007, selling it for a reported $45 million. So he had no further direct financial interests in what became Uranium One. Furthermore, did his relationship with the Clintons (Bill in particular) boost the value of the shares?

So what was the nearly $140 million supposed to be buying? A favor for his buddy Ian Telfer, years down the road? That doesn't add up. Short of uncovering documentation of some elaborate scheme whereby Giustra benefited somehow indirectly or maybe a failed plot that would have netted him a huge windfall, how could this make sense for Giustra?

3. How do you prove that the donations aren't exactly what they are purported to be by those involved? Look into Giustra a bit. He's given all sorts of money before and after and unrelated to the Clintons. It's not out of character for him to make multi-million dollar donations. He's given tens of millions to the University of Ottawa for instance.

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.

From what I read, Ian Telfer is an old friend of his but without some evidence saying, "Yo Bill, can you get the wife to hook my boy Ian up?" how do you prove anything?

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.

How much was actually given while she was SoS? A couple million? How much of that is in the time frame of the CFIUS vote? Less than a million? Something like $250k?

Now you're talking about a substantially smaller amount of money and the same questions as above with the possible exception that Tefler possibly made more money because of the deal than he donated to the Clinton Foundation.

Do you honestly think the Clintons would act in a way that they thought was contrary to US interests for a fraction of what they could make off the advance on a ghostwritten book? Hell, as well all know, they rake in huge amounts of money from speaking engagements. And that's money that goes into their pockets, not donations to the Clinton Foundation.

I don't think a lot of the speculation that's being made is really all that plausible in the first place but then there's the issue of proving it which seems next to impossible.

Now they're hoping that this CI from a tangential investigation is going to provide something that connects these dots? What are the chances of that, really? What's he going to say? "They told me not to talk about it." Okay, whose they? If it ain't somebody at the top levels, that means they've got to bring in the person who told him not to talk. Then that person would have to not only confirm the allegation but admit to some malfeasance and implicate his boss, all the way up the ladder to Mueller and from there to the administration and back to Clinton.

Let's hear what the guy has to say and by all means investigate it. But my honest opinion is it's not going anywhere. Furthermore, my opinion is that the Republicans already know that it's not going anywhere and it's really just a stunt.

originally posted by: introvert


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.

That alone is not enough to keep the witness from leaking the calls.

Then what? Hillary will be caught very soon.

Just like you thought she was going to win the election
but she lost. Just like Trump won, your wrong on this.

Guess this got upgraded from "matter"?

a reply to: theantediluvian

uranium probe, aka "operation get-back-at"

a reply to: theantediluvian

On your points.

1. Even under the best of estimates, large amounts of money in the foundation go to paying employees, conferences, etc. By the same token, we can say that just because money went into a trump owneed company doesnt mean it was just Tryump getting money.

This is a ridiculous argument.

2. Giustra stood to agian a lot had she won the election. Proving pay for play doesn't mean she had to come through.
Also, if waanted Russia to get control over this, he didn't necessarily have to personally get wealth for pay to play. By the same token, if Putin personally gives Trump 100 million dollars, and Trump only issues policies that favor Russia but not Putin personally, would you argue that clearly this isnt pay for play then?

3. Clinton still received much money, including half a million personally to her husband while sos around the time of dthe deal.

Yes, we have seen politicians do all sorts of things for smaller amounts of money such as mortgage schemes etc. that made no sense.

As for the rest, I agree lets see an investigation. Perhaps the clintons are innocent. But lets see the investigation.

a reply to: theantediluvian

The best proof of quid pro quo is that donations to the Clinton Foundation dried up the moment she lost the election.

originally posted by: odzeandennz
a reply to: theantediluvian

uranium probe, aka "operation get-back-at"

Russia collusion probe.

Aka "How could we have had the MSM, wall st. Hollywood, other countries like the UK, spent billions of dollars, and so many other factors working in our favor and still lose the election? Lets blame Russia!"

originally posted by: AndyFromMichigan
a reply to: theantediluvian

The best proof of quid pro quo is that donations to the Clinton Foundation dried up the moment she lost the election.

and all of that is made public through the foundations tax filings.....unlike our current president's secret tax filings where he and his family hide all of their foreign bribery money, that doesn't even go into a charitable foundation. it goes right into their pockets....but, the right-wing rage needs to be fed, so you will get many stars and "atta boys"

originally posted by: jimmyx

originally posted by: AndyFromMichigan
a reply to: theantediluvian

The best proof of quid pro quo is that donations to the Clinton Foundation dried up the moment she lost the election.

and all of that is made public through the foundations tax filings.....unlike our current president's secret tax filings where he and his family hide all of their foreign bribery money, that doesn't even go into a charitable foundation. it goes right into their pockets....but, the right-wing rage needs to be fed, so you will get many stars and "atta boys"

Except the foundation forgot to disclose there donations from people in this deal.

www.nytimes.com...

So now you outraged, right?

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: jimmyx

originally posted by: AndyFromMichigan
a reply to: theantediluvian

The best proof of quid pro quo is that donations to the Clinton Foundation dried up the moment she lost the election.

and all of that is made public through the foundations tax filings.....unlike our current president's secret tax filings where he and his family hide all of their foreign bribery money, that doesn't even go into a charitable foundation. it goes right into their pockets....but, the right-wing rage needs to be fed, so you will get many stars and "atta boys"

Except the foundation forgot to disclose there donations from people in this deal.

www.nytimes.com...

So now you outraged, right?

not at all....you are comparing "apples to oranges" as the saying goes......and if you do not see the difference, nothing I say will make you change your mind

originally posted by: jimmyx

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: jimmyx

originally posted by: AndyFromMichigan
a reply to: theantediluvian

The best proof of quid pro quo is that donations to the Clinton Foundation dried up the moment she lost the election.

and all of that is made public through the foundations tax filings.....unlike our current president's secret tax filings where he and his family hide all of their foreign bribery money, that doesn't even go into a charitable foundation. it goes right into their pockets....but, the right-wing rage needs to be fed, so you will get many stars and "atta boys"

Except the foundation forgot to disclose there donations from people in this deal.

www.nytimes.com...

So now you outraged, right?

not at all....you are comparing "apples to oranges" as the saying goes......and if you do not see the difference, nothing I say will make you change your mind

Ah, another example which I see over and over.

Person against Trump outlines a criteria fro why he is bad, I show Hillary meeting that criteria, all of the sudden the goal post change.

Another good example.

"Well Hillary and the Clinton foundation disclose donations, so its different">

Actually they didn't disclose these donations.

"APPLES TO ORANGES!!!!!"

a reply to: Grambler

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.

You're just being irrational now. Where are these goal posts of yours coming from? First off, there's absolutely no way of quantifying the effect of any one of the multitude of factors influencing how people voted. So off the bat, you're setting an impossible standard.

And what kind of standard is this "more effective than billions of dollars spent by Hillary" for anything? Influence only matters if it can be proven the greatest influence?

Prove that Russian influence didn't sway the election. You can't do that either.

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.

Absurd and irrelevant. That's like saying if TV commercials are more effective, then radio commercials shouldn't exist. Or if online marketing campaigns yield the best results, nobody should bother with TV commercials. They're just different channels for influencing the masses.

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?

Lmao. Now a problem only exists if there's a solution for it? If you die of a disease with no cure, you're still dead. The fact that we haven't got a solution yet doesn't mean that there isn't a problem. You're being ridiculous.

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

I have never blamed Russian trolls for Hillary losing. What would be the point? Please don't project that lame ass talking point bull# on me. I'm concerned with how we're going to deal with an emerging threat going forward. If you're letting some fear of Trump's legitimacy being called into question blind you from reality, that's unfortunate.

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

Actually no. Lynch wasn't investigating Clinton. Devin Nunez was leading an investigation which included among others, Trump, whose minions he was meeting in secret and fellow members of Trump's transition team. That's not to say that the Lynch/WJC meeting wasn't inappropriate but for you to pretend that it's somehow more egregious than what Nunez has been doing is... well, you pretending.

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

What does Congress care about the MSM? If there was evidence of wrongdoing, do you think CNN is making Congress ignore it? Nonsense. It failed because there's nothing to it. It was itself a distraction pushed by the right-wing media at the behest of the GOP.

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 now anyone who has donated to the opposing party cannot investigate a politician? Only Republicans can investigate Republicans? Only Democrats can investigate Democrats? Funny that this new standard was invented in the last few months. Of course, it won't apply to the two Republican-led probes into the Uranium One deal, will it?

Didn't apply for Benghazi, did it? Didn't apply back when Ken Starr was tapped to be independent counsel investigating Bill Clinton's sex scandals did it? Hell, Ken Starr had investigated White Water and Vince Foster previously. He had made a career out of investigating the Clintons. And we're talking about a guy who was considering a Senate run but only bowed out because he didn't want to oppose Iran Contra bagman, Ollie North. Did anyone ever throw the brakes on Darrell Issa's kangaroo court?

You're talking about the federal government. Where do you think you're going to find people qualified who have never had any political involvement? And what's worse, not only is there this hypocrisy about the party affiliation of those who can investigate politicians — now even Republicans can't investigate Republicans. Now any Republican who doesn't toe the Trump line is part of the "GOP establishment" and presumed to be in league with the Democrats. And lets not forget that people of Mexican heritage aren't fit for it either, right? What are we left with? Who's acceptable to head up this investigation? Some random dude in a MAGA hat?

There's been no evidence provided of Mueller being involved in anything untoward whatsoever. Or do you have something I should consider? Because from where I'm standing, it looks like wanton speculation.

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

Not at all. If there's good reason to believe that Mueller was guilty of wrong doing, he should be immediately replaced. But you're more than putting the cart before the horse. He hasn't even been implicated in anything and you're crying foul.

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

Most people who actually know Mueller, including members of the GOP in Congress, including members of the administration, have expressed confidence in the impartiality of Mueller. Anyone who was tapped for that job would have had their independence questioned by one side or the other. I think Mueller was an appropriate choice.

originally posted by: theantediluvian
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.

Sometimes you've gotta grease some wheels to get things rollin'!

a reply to: burntheships

Fortunately you don't have any say or influence over Nunes job.

Your constant woodpecker tactics have drilled a little hole
on the little branch you live on, but that's as far as your
going to go.

It is beyond curious why you have such an interest in him.

Thanks for your substantive response. You always have so much of interest to add to a discussion.

originally posted by: theantediluvian


You're just being irrational now. Where are these goal posts of yours coming from? First off, there's absolutely no way of quantifying the effect of any one of the multitude of factors influencing how people voted. So off the bat, you're setting an impossible standard.

And what kind of standard is this "more effective than billions of dollars spent by Hillary" for anything? Influence only matters if it can be proven the greatest influence?

Prove that Russian influence didn't sway the election. You can't do that either.

Because it is ridiculous. Pokemon and tumbler and Facebook, the most of which was $150 thousand dollars, had a significant effect when billions of dollars were spent on the other hand?

But fine, any little influence from another country needs investigated.

So you are for a full scale investigation into the BBC right, who gave Hillary favorable coverage.

Looks like we should censor anybody from any other country from being able to say anything on Facebook, it couold have a small effect.

This is so dumb its unbelievable.

Absurd and irrelevant. That's like saying if TV commercials are more effective, then radio commercials shouldn't exist. Or if online marketing campaigns yield the best results, nobody should bother with TV commercials. They're just different channels for influencing the masses.

This is a joke.

Someone please round up Bulbasaur for overthrowing the election!!!

Lmao. Now a problem only exists if there's a solution for it? If you die of a disease with no cure, you're still dead. The fact that we haven't got a solution yet doesn't mean that there isn't a problem. You're being ridiculous.

Fine then let me rephrase the question. What is the threshold for what we should be worried about.

If a Chinese government employee post on facebook that Trump sucks, vote democrat, is this a problem? If its not a foriegn country, but instead a company that is giving opinions, is that a problem? If the MSM is biased, is that a problem?

I cant believe you buy this crap.

I have never blamed Russian trolls for Hillary losing. What would be the point? Please don't project that lame ass talking point bull# on me. I'm concerned with how we're going to deal with an emerging threat going forward. If you're letting some fear of Trump's legitimacy being called into question blind you from reality, that's unfortunate.

What threat? Foreigners posting on Facebook?

Yeah, what a threat.

Actually no. Lynch wasn't investigating Clinton.

Wrong. the DOJ was looking at Hillarys improper server. Why would you lie about this?

Devin Nunez was leading an investigation which included among others, Trump, whose minions he was meeting in secret and fellow members of Trump's transition team. That's not to say that the Lynch/WJC meeting wasn't inappropriate but for you to pretend that it's somehow more egregious than what Nunez has been doing is... well, you pretending.

No its not. Its self evidently more egregious. Meeting minions vs meeting husband. Nunes recused, Lynch didn't.

What does Congress care about the MSM? If there was evidence of wrongdoing, do you think CNN is making Congress ignore it? Nonsense. It failed because there's nothing to it. It was itself a distraction pushed by the right-wing media at the behest of the GOP.

Great. I hope all of the new investigations into Hillary survey and unmask many liberals than, and leak to the press.

No harm, no foul.

So now anyone who has donated to the opposing party cannot investigate a politician? Only Republicans can investigate Republicans? Only Democrats can investigate Democrats? Funny that this new standard was invented in the last few months. Of course, it won't apply to the two Republican-led probes into the Uranium One deal, will it?

Great, then no problem from you having a bunch of Trump supporters hired to do these investigations.

Glad to hear it.

And as you know, I am waiting for Muellers conclsuoon before passing judgement.

But if he becomes under suspicion in another russia investigation, why shouldn't he be removed from his investigation? I think we both agree here.

Most people who actually know Mueller, including members of the GOP in Congress, including members of the administration, have expressed confidence in the impartiality of Mueller. Anyone who was tapped for that job would have had their independence questioned by one side or the other. I think Mueller was an appropriate choice.

Mueller was directly involved into a case accusing russians of bribing Hillary. He knew this, and knew this could be a conflict of interest.

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: jimmyx

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: jimmyx

originally posted by: AndyFromMichigan
a reply to: theantediluvian

The best proof of quid pro quo is that donations to the Clinton Foundation dried up the moment she lost the election.

and all of that is made public through the foundations tax filings.....unlike our current president's secret tax filings where he and his family hide all of their foreign bribery money, that doesn't even go into a charitable foundation. it goes right into their pockets....but, the right-wing rage needs to be fed, so you will get many stars and "atta boys"

Except the foundation forgot to disclose there donations from people in this deal.

www.nytimes.com...

So now you outraged, right?

not at all....you are comparing "apples to oranges" as the saying goes......and if you do not see the difference, nothing I say will make you change your mind

Ah, another example which I see over and over.

Person against Trump outlines a criteria fro why he is bad, I show Hillary meeting that criteria, all of the sudden the goal post change.

Another good example.

"Well Hillary and the Clinton foundation disclose donations, so its different">

Actually they didn't disclose these donations.

"APPLES TO ORANGES!!!!!"

so, tell me again how Clinton put money into her own bank account, from a Canadian owned company selling their uranium mines to Russia, and whos Canadian owners donated money to a non-profit foundation?....didn't know that was the same thing as trump collecting profits from taxpayers, for secret service coverage of all of his properties that he or his family stays in.....yeah right....same thing in your mind anyway, but not in mine.

a reply to: jimmyx

Cash

Bearer Bonds

a reply to: Grambler

Because it is ridiculous. Pokemon and tumbler and Facebook, the most of which was $150 thousand dollars, had a significant effect when billions of dollars were spent on the other hand?

It's not about money, it's about results.

This is so dumb its unbelievable.

This is a joke. Someone please round up Bulbasaur for overthrowing the election!!!

Yeah it's all a joke. It's not like disinformation campaigns have any effect.

NYPD Blows Whistle on New Hillary Emails
BREAKING: Comey Tells FBI to Prepare for Raids
NYPD Turns Against the FBI Seized Laptop Shows Hillary Clinton Covered Up Weiner’s Sex Crimes
Hillary Needed Help During The CIC Forum, Had Ear Piece
Assange Included on Obama's "KILLER TUESDAY" List

That's just a few of the hits from one fake news source. Seemed really popular with Trumpkins on ATS. But I digress, they must be different from other Trump supporters. Right? Nobody else would take fake news from True Pundit seriously, would they?



Well, not a noted left-wing journalist at least!



The impartial bastion of truth, WikiLeaks wouldn't spread fake news either would they?



In fact:

RT - Hillary Clinton considered drone attack on Julian Assange - report
Washington Examiner - WikiLeaks cites report saying Clinton mulled killing Assange with drones
Fox News - 'Specific info' forces WikiLeaks to move anticipated announcement to Berlin
Town Hall - Report: Clinton Mulled Killing Wikileaks' Julian Assange With A Drone Strike

In fact, if I look around, I'm pretty sure there's a video of Kellyanne repeating this same fake news bulls#. Then there are all the derivative stories about Clinton saying she didn't recall having said it (dozens) — because it was all made up by True Pundit like most of their original content.

How much do you think that it cost to have a fake news story written for publication on a site like True Pundit? Hundreds of dollars? But no, no influence.

Maybe when it's not linked to Trump you'll be able to let go some of that reflexive denial. Because be assured, it's not going away.

As for the rest. If it turns out that there is evidence of Mueller being involved in some sort of wrongdoing re the Uranium One probe, then of course he should be step down/be removed but as of right now, I think you're beating that drum out of wishful thinking more than substance.