Hillary & Uranium One
6 responses | 0 likes
Started by cfdr - Dec. 1, 2018, 10:32 a.m.

I read through this Snopes link and was laughing much of the time.


Clinton was one of nine cabinet members and department heads that sit on the CFIUS

But, she was Hillary Clinton and the Secretary of State.  Let's be rational here, ok?

Of the $145 million allegedly contributed to the Clinton Foundation by Uranium One investors, the lion’s share — $131.3 million — came from a single donor, Frank Giustra, the company’s Canadian founder. But Giustra sold off his entire stake in the company in 2007, three years before the Russia deal and at least 18 months before Clinton became secretary of state. 

That was about the time she was expected to become President, wasn't it?

His donations through the Fernwood Foundation included $1 million reported in 2009, the year his company appealed to the American Embassy to help it keep its mines in Kazakhstan; $250,000 in 2010, the year the Russians sought majority control; as well as $600,000 in 2011 and $500,000 in 2012. Mr. Telfer said that his donations had nothing to do with his business dealings

"Nothing to do with his business dealings" - Of course, of course.  A NYT article tells a different story.

Clinton Foundation’s practices did find was that not all of the donations were properly disclosed — specifically, those of Uranium One Chairman Ian Telfer between 2009 and 2012.

Just a mistake, of course .  .  . But, again, a NYT article tells a different story.

Given the enormous sums of money it controls and the fact that it is run by a former U.S. president who is married to a former U.S. secretary of state and presidential candidate, the foundation deserves all the scrutiny it gets, and more.

This was too much to even laugh at.  We just had a news item where a whistleblower who had legally turned in evidence of the DOJ & FBI purposely not investigating this was the subject of an (apparently illegal) FBI raid where they confiscated everything he had.  It is below under "A good look behind the curtain."


This stinks to high heaven.

At least now we know how "trusted" Snopes should be.

That NYT article is


A person with knowledge of the Clinton Foundation’s fund-raising operation, who requested anonymity to speak candidly about it, said that for many people, the hope is that money will in fact buy influence: “Why do you think they are doing it — because they love them?”

An article in "The Hill":

Campbell wrote that Russian nuclear executives “boasted” during vodka-fueled meetings monitored by the FBI about “how weak the U.S. government was in giving away uranium business and were confident that Russia would secure the strategic advantage it was seeking in the U.S. uranium market.” 

“I was frustrated watching the U.S. government make numerous decisions benefiting Rosatom and Tenex while those entities were engaged in serious criminal conduct on U.S. soil,” he wrote. “Tenex and Rosatom were raking in billions of U.S. dollars by signing contracts with American nuclear utility clients at the same time they were indulging in extortion by using threats to get bribes and kickbacks, with a portion going to Russia for high ranking officials.” 

He said he never got a satisfactory answer from the FBI.

“I remember one response I got from an agent when I asked how it was possible CFIUS would approve the Uranium One sale when the FBI could prove Rosatom was engaged in criminal conduct.  His answer: ‘Ask your politics,’ ” Campbell said.  

By carlberky - Dec. 1, 2018, 10:51 a.m.
Like Reply

I'm glad you got a good laugh out of it, but can you refute any of the timeline given, other than with your scorn and opinion ?

If you can't come back with some facts pertaining to the timeline, then the thread is all yours.

By cfdr - Dec. 1, 2018, 11:21 a.m.
Like Reply

Carl,  I have no idea if the timeline is right or not.  What I think I do know is that the Clintons left the White House, in their own words, broke.  After Hillary's stint as Sec of State, they were worth in the neighborhood of a quarter of a billion dollars - and that is all that is known, at least.  My question is -

What did they sell to make all that money?

And, please don't go off on the road that it's the Foundation.  Even Bob Woodward called that just a tax dodge.

Did you skip over the parts from the NYT and The Hill?  The part about "Why do you think they are doing it - because they love them?"  The part about "Ask your politics"?

This is why posting on a forum like this is really useless.  You are the most rational of any of the posters on the Left we have.

And, we cannot even agree that Hillary Clinton is crooked as a dog's hind leg.

That's discouraging to me.  That reinforces what I know about sources for news, whether the MSM or the internet.  I keep a Yahoo email account to keep stuff out of my main account.  Every day I scan the headlines on Yahoo News.  It gets to be depressing seeing how relentlessly biased the headlines are.  But, here, I expect a bit more - but I see that is impossible too.

As for the Uranium One controversy - one final thought.  The raid on the whistleblower's house is, I'm afraid, telling us that the FBI and DOJ really do not want to investigate the matter.  The raid should have been illegal, but they don't seem to care.  If you can't see the hypocrisy in the Mueller investigation, you are willfully blind. 

By carlberky - Dec. 1, 2018, 11:57 a.m.
Like Reply

"Carl,  I have no idea if the timeline is right or not. "

Hum, what was the title of your thread again ? 

By cfdr - Dec. 1, 2018, 12:10 p.m.
Like Reply

You're avoiding the obvious, Carl.

What did they sell to make all that money?

By carlberky - Dec. 1, 2018, 1:03 p.m.
Like Reply

Hum, what was the title of your thread again ?

If you want to start a different topic, then do so. If it not opinion, I'll see you then.

By cfdr - Dec. 1, 2018, 1:40 p.m.
Like Reply

Looking on the bright side - at least you didn't call me a fascist or a nazi.