The Uranium One controversy, explained by the people who publicized the story

The Uranium One controversy, explained by the people who publicized the story (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

heavyblinker -> The Uranium One controversy, explained by the people who publicized the story (10/30/2017 11:07:03 AM)
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/30/opinion/paul-manafort-indictment-trump.html quote: it was The Times that in 2015 helped uncover and publicize the uranium arrangement, but it has been flagrantly taken out of context by Fox News and its ilk. For starters, there seems to be a suspicion on the right that American uranium is going to Russia, while in fact there’s no export license—so the uranium stays in America. More important, this was a non-controversial deal that an interagency committee approved, apparently unanimously, at a level far below Hillary Clinton as secretary of state. Every bit of evidence says that Clinton never even weighed in on it. So the notion that this is somehow a serious scandal parallel to Moscow’s work to overturn an American presidential election is just comical. So there you have it.

MrRodgers -> RE: The Uranium One controversy, explained by the people who broke the story (10/30/2017 11:11:58 AM)
The donations from those with ties to Uranium One weren’t publicly disclosed by the Clinton Foundation, even though Hillary Clinton had an agreement with the White House that the foundation would disclose all contributors. Days after the Times story, the foundation acknowledged that it “made mistakes,” saying it had disclosed donations from a Canadian charity, for instance, but not the donors to that charity who were associated with the uranium company. Besides, hasn't been the right wingers in America that find it just ok that billion$ in repub donations are totally undisclosed and even contributers to repub and right wing PACS and non-profits are never disclosed and there is NO law requiring their disclosure. [They] the right don't want that law. LOOK the left, the Clintons are corrupt YES !! BUT as I've told you, mere amateurs compared the the right (repubs) The dems could learn a lot more than Reagan taught them about corruption

DaddySatyr -> RE: The Uranium One controversy, explained by the people who broke the story (10/30/2017 11:13:49 AM)
Oooops! quote: Clinton Foundation Donations and Bill Clinton Speaking Fee Clinton’s role in the Uranium One sale, and the link to the Clinton Foundation, first became an issue in 2015, when news organizations received advance copies of the book “Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich,” by Peter Schweizer, a former fellow at a conservative think tank. On April 23, 2015, the New York Times wrote about the uranium issue, saying the paper had “built upon” Schweizer’s information. The Times detailed how the Clinton Foundation had received millions in donations from investors in Uranium One. So ... who broke the story? By your inference, that would make Schweizer the "authority", no? Michael

heavyblinker -> RE: The Uranium One controversy, explained by the people who broke the story (10/30/2017 11:24:11 AM)
If there was some cosmic law that said only the person who first discovered the story could ever be 'the' authority, then yeah, I guess.

heavyblinker -> RE: The Uranium One controversy, explained by the people who broke the story (10/30/2017 11:27:09 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers IIRC hers was one of 9 signatories on that deal. She was controlling their minds. But really, she wouldn't have to use her mind control powers here-- everyone knows how easy it is to get government officials to give away US Uranium reserves so that Hillary Clinton can become rich. They just really want her to have a lot of money.

MrRodgers -> RE: The Uranium One controversy, explained by the people who broke the story (10/30/2017 11:45:45 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr Oooops! quote: Clinton Foundation Donations and Bill Clinton Speaking Fee Clinton’s role in the Uranium One sale, and the link to the Clinton Foundation, first became an issue in 2015, when news organizations received advance copies of the book “Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich,” by Peter Schweizer, a former fellow at a conservative think tank. On April 23, 2015, the New York Times wrote about the uranium issue, saying the paper had “built upon” Schweizer’s information. The Times detailed how the Clinton Foundation had received millions in donations from investors in Uranium One. So ... who broke the story? By your inference, that would make Schweizer the "authority", no? Michael But Michael, if this was a private contribution to an HRC PAC or non-profit, disclosure is not required.

MrRodgers -> RE: The Uranium One controversy, explained by the people who broke the story (10/30/2017 11:50:38 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: heavyblinker quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers IIRC hers was one of 9 signatories on that deal. She was controlling their minds. But really, she wouldn't have to use her mind control powers here-- everyone knows how easy it is to get government officials to give away US Uranium reserves so that Hillary Clinton can become rich. They just really want her to have a lot of money. History must show this so future historians after they declare [us] insane for driving 3000 lbs objects virtually at each other and at speed, will also get a laugh about how this one deal and even a handful of deals like this, ranks up there with historical right wing avarice.

LORDOFTHERINGS19 -> RE: The Uranium One controversy, explained by the people who publicized the story (10/30/2017 3:06:46 PM)
Have you ever watched FOX-shit and ~~friends~~ wankers? It scares even me. It is unlikely I scare easily.

stef -> RE: The Uranium One controversy, explained by the people who publicized the story (10/30/2017 5:37:42 PM)
Get back on your meds, headcase.

Page: [1]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875