Russia scandal? Inside the Obama-Clinton uranium deal which is the real scandal IMO

originally posted by: JoshuaCox

originally posted by: 727Sky
It has been said that the best defense is a strong offense which comes to mind when you keep hearing those who want to push a Russian Trump connection.... When the real connection is the uranium deal Clinton had a hand in and her husband made the big bucks...

Tens of millions of dollars from uranium investors flowed into the Clinton Foundation, and Bill Clinton received a $500,000 speaking fee from a Russian bank tied to the Kremlin before Secretary of State Hillary Clinton helped decide whether to approve the sale to the Russian government of a company that held one-fifth of America’s uranium capacity.

www.wnd.com...

The 2010 deal for a majority stake of Canadian-based Uranium One – which required approval from Clinton’s State Department and eight other federal agencies – and its plausible connection to major donations to the Clinton Foundation was exposed by author Peter Schweizer in his book “Clinton Cash and confirmed in a 3,000 word, front-page story by the New York Times.

IMO a plausible connection is a 500,000$ understatement !

The origin of the deal traced back to 2005, when mining financier Frank Giustra traveled with Bill Clinton to work out an agreement with the government of Kazakhstan for mining rights.

Giustra has donated $31.3 million to the Clinton Foundation.

Nothing to see here as it is just business as usual for the Clinton crime cabal... Of course Podesta was on the board of the energy company in question but as the defenders will say any connection is utterly baseless.

The Times observed: “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.”

From the direction of nuclear weapons it doesn't matter how much uranium America sells to Russia , because between our 2 countries we have had more than enough nukes to end humanity ...for decades!!

What is the difference between a war with 10,000 nukes vs. 10,000 nukes, or a war with 20,0000 vs. 20,000 nukes??

Absolutely nothing..

Secondly pay for play and insider trading was made legal for American politicians generations ago...

Hillary clinton isn't specifically corrupt.. she is a staple in a very broken system... why break the law when you can legally insider trade??


You wouldn't... I wouldn't..why would she risk it??


To the trump part..

I think there is RARELY a a conspiracy with so obvious a benefit trail as the trump Russian connection..

All the shady meetings, all the fireings, all the lies to congress, Flynn being a foreign agent of a Russian puppet state, the GOP party platform change and now you have nunes trying to lie about things as a deflection..

this post is comedy gold. Clinton is good for taking advantage of the system, but Trump is bad because somebody said he talked to Russians. Dude, you make me smile.

originally posted by: xuenchen
Hillary Clinton as SoS was on the CFIUS.

Composition of CFIUS

And did she decide on this issue, or did someone else at State?

And what about the other eight (8) Departments on CFIUS?

And what about the Nuclear Regulatory Commission?

originally posted by: TamtammyMacx
What is worry some is that selling it to other countries makes it harder to pinpoint the origins and those responsible for an explosion event. Could this selling of uranium make for a cover for a false flag? Scientists would test after an explosion to find out through markers where the uranium was mined. An explosion could have all the markers of US uranium. How would they find the culprits? All their tests could now lead them in the wrong direction and a wrong answer.

The uranium involved in this "conspiracy" doesn't leave the United States.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Vasa Croe

But your argument against the allegations against Trump connections with Russia is that Russia is good? We need Russia?


So, let me get this straight ... Russia = Bad under Obama, Russia = Good under Trump.


What absolute rot.

The Trump ones are just that...allegations. the Podesta, Hillary, Obama, RUSNANO, Joule connection is proven. All of those things happened that I posted about in my thread. All of them occurred during sanctions. And all of them occurred with people that were currently holding government positions.

And I don't recall saying anything about Russia being good....you can spin your story with someone else.

a reply to: Vasa Croe

Are you really going to stake the claim that there are no extensive business connections between Trump and Russia/Russians?

Your idea of "proof" seems to be different than the standard one, but that's off-topic here. Do you have proof regarding the claim in this thread that Hillary Clinton sold uranium to Russia? If so, I'd love to see that.

Beg pardon if you personally haven't told us how important it (suddenly) is for the US to have a great relationship with Russia. So many Trump supporters and apologists and zealots do, it's hard to keep you all separate.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Trump is a businessman he had connections all over the world so you point is.......

originally posted by: marg6043
a reply to: Gryphon66

Trump is a businessman he had connections all over the world so you point is.......

Money is money, Marg.

A sweet deal is a sweet deal.

So's a massive loan.

And at the end of the day, what's a little money-laundering between friends, eh?

a reply to: Gryphon66

Clinton had enormous power and influence.

So did the Clinton Foundation.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Vasa Croe

Are you really going to stake the claim that there are no extensive business connections between Trump and Russia/Russians?

Your idea of "proof" seems to be different than the standard one, but that's off-topic here. Do you have proof regarding the claim in this thread that Hillary Clinton sold uranium to Russia? If so, I'd love to see that.

Beg pardon if you personally haven't told us how important it (suddenly) is for the US to have a great relationship with Russia. So many Trump supporters and apologists and zealots do, it's hard to keep you all separate.

Business dealings with Trump and Russia? Are you kidding? Can you name a businessman with the same stature as Trump in the business world that hasn't? Can you show me where him doing whatever business he has done with Russia was illegal?

I can actually show you the invoice citing Podesta being on the board of Joule and having a hand in appointing the head of RUSNANO USA to Joule's board. I can show you the deal with RUSNANO allowing them to build in the US and tie it directly to Hillary and Obama DURING sanctions.

Is it your opinion that RUSNANO, who's President is directly appointed by Putin, should have been allowed to purchase Joule, build a US facility and appoint the RUSNANO US President to the BoD of Joule? Do I even need to link the other thread with Tony Podesta being heavily involved in Russia? We are talking about links that go WAY back. Podesta was Chief of Staff for Bill Clinton, Counselor to Obama, and chair of the Hillary campaign.

You're talking about a global businessman and whining that he had business dealings with businesses in another country while he was a businessman?

originally posted by: marg6043
a reply to: rickymouse

I know right? the Clinton foundation the biggest money laundering enterprise in the history of the US.

But Russia won the elections, because they colluded with Trump so the Hillary hag will lose, when the pay off was for Hillary to win the elections.

What that tells you.

Yup, we can't trust Russia, or politicians.

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: rickymouse
This subject should not be ignored. It is severe conflict of interest by Clinton. This is way worse than what I so far have heard about Trump, it is funny that there is so much tension between putin and Hillary. I bet Hillary expected more than the money, she thought she could influence the Russian elections without being chastised by their government because she did this deal. Some people, give them an inch and they take a mile. She thinks everyone is a pushover.

IF you are referring to Uranium One, there was no conflict of interest. Clinton didn't make the decision for State, which was one of nine (9) departments that signed off on the deal; further, it had to be approved by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (which did approve it noting that the uranium in question WOULD STAY IN THE US.)

You don't think that the Clintons have pull in our government, her being the Secretary of State and Bill being an Ex president? Come on, all they had to do was talk to the right people and things get done, no evidence gets created. Evidently you either don't know how things work in the real world or you are trying to protect someone's interests. That is how I see it.

a reply to: Vasa Croe

So business deals don't involve money, favors and influence?

Right, you can talk about the RUSNANO deal if you want. If YOU are able to demonstrate such proof, why do you think it's gone unnoticed to actual investigators, eh? Surely you don't think you're "breaking" the story, do you?

Turn over what you have to Congress ... I'm sure they'll be glad to do another investigation of Democrats.

Stop pretending that there's no direct connection between Trump, the Trump Organization, Trump's operatives and employees, or that we haven't seen BLATANT evidence of the lies covered up regarding National Security Adviser Flynn's contacts with Russian agents.

That's the last I'll say about your attempt at subterfuge: this discussion is about the lie regarding Hillary Clinton selling uranium to Russia.

Anything on topic?

a reply to: rickymouse

What does what I think or you think or anybody thinks about whatever influence you think the Clinton's have matter?

Do you have any evidence? If you don't, you're discussing imagination or belief.

And you my friend are the last one to talk about who knows what about the real world.

You just suggested that you have evidence regarding something you say that no evidence can exist for.

That's what we in the real world call "fantasy."

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: Gryphon66

Clinton had enormous power and influence.

So did the Clinton Foundation.

Which one?

You guys go back and forth between portraying both Clintons as too stupid to use email properly and being world class super-villians.

Which is it this time?

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: JoshuaCox

originally posted by: 727Sky
It has been said that the best defense is a strong offense which comes to mind when you keep hearing those who want to push a Russian Trump connection.... When the real connection is the uranium deal Clinton had a hand in and her husband made the big bucks...

Tens of millions of dollars from uranium investors flowed into the Clinton Foundation, and Bill Clinton received a $500,000 speaking fee from a Russian bank tied to the Kremlin before Secretary of State Hillary Clinton helped decide whether to approve the sale to the Russian government of a company that held one-fifth of America’s uranium capacity.

www.wnd.com...

The 2010 deal for a majority stake of Canadian-based Uranium One – which required approval from Clinton’s State Department and eight other federal agencies – and its plausible connection to major donations to the Clinton Foundation was exposed by author Peter Schweizer in his book “Clinton Cash and confirmed in a 3,000 word, front-page story by the New York Times.

IMO a plausible connection is a 500,000$ understatement !

The origin of the deal traced back to 2005, when mining financier Frank Giustra traveled with Bill Clinton to work out an agreement with the government of Kazakhstan for mining rights.

Giustra has donated $31.3 million to the Clinton Foundation.

Nothing to see here as it is just business as usual for the Clinton crime cabal... Of course Podesta was on the board of the energy company in question but as the defenders will say any connection is utterly baseless.

The Times observed: “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.”

From the direction of nuclear weapons it doesn't matter how much uranium America sells to Russia , because between our 2 countries we have had more than enough nukes to end humanity ...for decades!!

What is the difference between a war with 10,000 nukes vs. 10,000 nukes, or a war with 20,0000 vs. 20,000 nukes??

Absolutely nothing..

Secondly pay for play and insider trading was made legal for American politicians generations ago...

Hillary clinton isn't specifically corrupt.. she is a staple in a very broken system... why break the law when you can legally insider trade??


You wouldn't... I wouldn't..why would she risk it??


To the trump part..

I think there is RARELY a a conspiracy with so obvious a benefit trail as the trump Russian connection..

All the shady meetings, all the fireings, all the lies to congress, Flynn being a foreign agent of a Russian puppet state, the GOP party platform change and now you have nunes trying to lie about things as a deflection..

this post is comedy gold. Clinton is good for taking advantage of the system, but Trump is bad because somebody said he talked to Russians. Dude, you make me smile.

Who said that?!?!

I said she wasn't any more corrupt than the rest of them..and that the system was broken. How are either one of those good things??

I basically said she was an average nazi, not the worst nazi ever... as she is being sold..

Just like your average conservative shill.. will pretend like Comey said "russia didn't interfere in the election so trump is innocent... when he actually said thy weren't able to hack the actual machines and trump is absolutely under investigation for colluding with Russia...

At least your consistent I guess...

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: rickymouse

What does what I think or you think or anybody thinks about whatever influence you think the Clinton's have matter?

Do you have any evidence? If you don't, you're discussing imagination or belief.

And you my friend are the last one to talk about who knows what about the real world.

You just suggested that you have evidence regarding something you say that no evidence can exist for.

That's what we in the real world call "fantasy."

I have known politicians in the past, I have talked to a couple personally over the years. Your statements are just parroting Democratic propaganda interpretted by consensus of the time. Do I need to have evidence to show how things happen all through society on a daily basis, both in politics and in the general public? I can see a young person being Naive about this, but not someone over thirty. There seems to be an increasing amount of older blind people parroting things in politics over the last twenty years though. They are blind because they do not understand that politicians are usually decievers. A good representative of your area will try to make deals to benefit the people they represent. In the case of high political figures like the president, the people they represent is often big business or the people who donate to their campaigns. We are pawns.

We should elect our congressmen because of their ability to get things done for the people they represent, not to represent the security of their donators to the political party they are in. There are some good congressmen, but even they are being forced to make alliances to the party and this polarization is not in the best interest of the citizens overall. When a representative is elected in a district, he represents everyone in that district, not just the people who voted him/her in.

a reply to: rickymouse

Right, right anecdotal evidence is your gold standard of evidnece.

BS. What "Democratic propaganda" am I parroting, eh? Quote it.

Or admit that all you've got are a string of lofty-sounding, empty-of-content statements.

Do you need evidence of how "things happen in society?"

Well, if you do, information is available to educate yourself on; what particularly is confusing you?

Dude ... I'm on record here so many times saying that politicians are liars, I have NO IDEA what you're going on and on about.

You're certainly not talking about me.

And now you're waxing on about your philosophy of the way politics should be ... bla bla bla.

When you get any evidence for your claims, let me know.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Vasa Croe

So business deals don't involve money, favors and influence?

Right, you can talk about the RUSNANO deal if you want. If YOU are able to demonstrate such proof, why do you think it's gone unnoticed to actual investigators, eh? Surely you don't think you're "breaking" the story, do you?

Turn over what you have to Congress ... I'm sure they'll be glad to do another investigation of Democrats.

Stop pretending that there's no direct connection between Trump, the Trump Organization, Trump's operatives and employees, or that we haven't seen BLATANT evidence of the lies covered up regarding National Security Adviser Flynn's contacts with Russian agents.

That's the last I'll say about your attempt at subterfuge: this discussion is about the lie regarding Hillary Clinton selling uranium to Russia.

Anything on topic?

Business deals involve all kinds of things....let me know when it is shown he broke a law. Then take a look at who created/passed that law. Then take another look at who benefits from those laws allowing things like tax covers in Panama, or even who worked really hard to get the Panama Trade Agreement passed.

See....the problem is that the connections with HRC and Obama and Putin and Russia are so many that it is really easy to actually follow the timeline and companies and donations and laws that were used to collude with Russia on numerous ventures, even while sanctioned.

There are no such things with Trump...he was not a politician prior to January of this year....he was a global business owner.

I don't pretend. And the RUSNANO deal did happen. Oddly, RUSNANO and Rosatom avoided sanctions, even though they are both Russian State Owned Organizations under Putin's direct control....just because you are too lazy to actually research it some doesn't make it untrue. And just because you say there are allegations on Trump colluding with Russia and blah blah blah, does not make it so.

Anywho..as you said, back on topic.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: rickymouse

Right, right anecdotal evidence is your gold standard of evidnece.

BS. What "Democratic propaganda" am I parroting, eh? Quote it.

Or admit that all you've got are a string of lofty-sounding, empty-of-content statements.

Do you need evidence of how "things happen in society?"

Well, if you do, information is available to educate yourself on; what particularly is confusing you?

Dude ... I'm on record here so many times saying that politicians are liars, I have NO IDEA what you're going on and on about.

You're certainly not talking about me.

And now you're waxing on about your philosophy of the way politics should be ... bla bla bla.

When you get any evidence for your claims, let me know.

Been around for a long enough time that I know that smart people do not put things into writing that are controvercial. Lawyers promote this, no evidence means you are not liable because there is no evidence. So maybe you think every senator making a deal with another Senator needs to have that conversation recorded. Good luck with that. I personally do not have a problem with putting the final statements on paper but what is being discussed and the reason for discussions is not necessary in politics. We are actually hearing too much lately, this is causing a big problem in our society. Usually the final bill is all changed by the time it hits the voting, all deals are in place.

So I say that anecdotal evidence is the mainstay of politics. Eighty percent of what Politicians talk about is not recorded, the same goes with most big corporations. You don't think that Big business people play golf for the sport do you? There are no people recording their meetings out when they play golf, Trump plays golf a lot, so did Obama.

I see a severe restriction in Social media on the horizon. I see MSM flopping and getting redone. This site is on the list as Fake news, yet it is actually supposed to be a think tank, one where we could uncover the truth.

Sure, by intent, there is not a lot of evidence revealed or created within politics, You cannot pick apart every single statement that is made and get anything accomplished, that is exactly how the Far Left is trying to derail this presidency. I spent quite a bit of time studying the different tactics and practices of Ad Hominum and also spent some time researching how our government works over the years. I actually derived some of my business from bureaucracies so have always been interested on how things work in government, having discussed this with people working for the county and other government agencies I started all that during the eighties. I even considered running for a political office years ago but when I talked to a guy I knew who was a politician, we both agreed I would not fit in, I was too honest and didn't like to approve things I would not think were right. He was in the State legislature, a friend of a State Senator though. To succeed, it is often who you know, not what you know.

Of course, I have no evidence of this and I would never name who the people I know are. All the bigger politicians I know are or were Democrats though. That I can say.

a reply to: Vasa Croe

Trump breaking laws? LOL. Ask for something hard. Did he shell out $25 million over Trump U because he told the truth? LOL

So now you want to hypothesize, generalize and fantasize ... in short do ANYTHING in order to spin away from the specifics of the thread here which you desperately want to avoid.

Any proof that Hillary Clinton sold uranium then? or not?