The Hillary Uranium Deal

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

Looks like it's heating up after te release of a lot of FBI documents yesterday.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/10/19/grassley-wants-gag-order-lifted-for-fbi-informant-allegedly-threatened-by-obama-doj.html

[HVAU 673]

This is one area where I'll go with you.

I want to know just what the what was going on here.  I don't care if it incriminates someone I have previously supported.  If concrete evidence exists that the previous adminstration or its representatives betrayed America for personal gain they should be prosecuted.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

4 minutes ago, HVAU said:

This is one area where I'll go with you.

I want to know just what the what was going on here.  I don't care if it incriminates someone I have previously supported.  If concrete evidence exists that the previous adminstration or its representatives betrayed America for personal gain they should be prosecuted.

I feel the same way regardless if it's Trump, Clinton, or anyone.

[SaltyTiger 7,837]

6 hours ago, HVAU said:

This is one area where I'll go with you.

I want to know just what the what was going on here.  I don't care if it incriminates someone I have previously supported.  If concrete evidence exists that the previous adminstration or its representatives betrayed America for personal gain they should be prosecuted.

On Thursday, President Trump called the issue “your real Russia story” and said “it’s a disgrace” that the “fake news won’t cover” it.

 

Coming around to see that Trump alright HV.......guess you are ok

[HVAU 673]

19 hours ago, SaltyTiger said:

On Thursday, President Trump called the issue “your real Russia story” and said “it’s a disgrace” that the “fake news won’t cover” it.

 

Coming around to see that Trump alright HV.......guess you are ok

Oh no.  Trump is anything but ok.  I just expect public/elected officials to be held to account of any significant wrongdoing. 

It's my opinion that Trump's day will come.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

13 minutes ago, HVAU said:

 

It's my opinion that Trump's day will come.

It already has so just enjoy

[Auburn85 432]

 

[SaltyTiger 7,837]

2 hours ago, HVAU said:

Oh no.  Trump is anything but ok.  I just expect public/elected officials to be held to account of any significant wrongdoing. 

It's my opinion that Trump's day will come.

 

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

On ‎10‎/‎20‎/‎2017 at 4:16 PM, HVAU said:

Oh no.  Trump is anything but ok.  I just expect public/elected officials to be held to account of any significant wrongdoing. 

It's my opinion that Trump's day will come.

It looks more like Obama and Hillary's day is coming.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/10/22/house-also-probing-obama-era-uranium-one-deal-desantis-says.html

[ArgoEagle 1,792]

12 hours ago, Proud Tiger said:

It looks more like Obama and Hillary's day is coming.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/10/22/house-also-probing-obama-era-uranium-one-deal-desantis-says.html

If you knew Obama was a wolf in wolf's clothing raise your hand. Hillary falls into the category of if you give her enough rope, she will hang herself. Every time she opens her mouth the noose gets tighter.

[TexasTiger 12,974]

Good twitter thread:

https://mobile.twitter.com/joshtpm/status/924059597643702272

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

1 hour ago, TexasTiger said:

Good twitter thread:

https://mobile.twitter.com/joshtpm/status/924059597643702272

Notwithstanding that Russia does not have a license to export uranium  outside the US, they nonetheless took a majority stake in the uranium. Given that a foreign entity took said stake, it follows that the deal was subject to approval by CFIUS. CFIUS membership includes the State Department - which means Secretary of State, Hillary, had a voice in the deal. 

In light of the 'antique' obvious, and novel discoveries, quid pro quo is not without merit. 

[homersapien 11,409]

6 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Notwithstanding that Russia does not have a license to export uranium  outside the US, they nonetheless took a majority stake in the uranium. Given that a foreign entity took said stake, it follows that the deal was subject to approval by CFIUS. CFIUS membership includes the State Department - which means Secretary of State, Hillary, had a voice in the deal. 

In light of the 'antique' obvious, and novel discoveries, quid pro quo is not without merit. 

So how many voices are we talking about again?   

And what do we actually know about the role did Hillary played?

 

[TexasTiger 12,974]

10 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Notwithstanding that Russia does not have a license to export uranium  outside the US, they nonetheless took a majority stake in the uranium. Given that a foreign entity took said stake, it follows that the deal was subject to approval by CFIUS. CFIUS membership includes the State Department - which means Secretary of State, Hillary, had a voice in the deal. 

In light of the 'antique' obvious, and novel discoveries, quid pro quo is not without merit. 

And?

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

1 hour ago, homersapien said:

So how many voices are we talking about again?   

And what do we actually know about the role did Hillary played?

 

She was Secretary of State... if you know anything about administrative law, you'd know she was vital in the negotiations 

[homersapien 11,409]

3 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

She was Secretary of State... if you know anything about administrative law, you'd know she was vital in the negotiations 

Sorry but an 'appeal to authority' doesn't cut it.

I don't know what part in negotiations she might have played. Hell, for that matter, I don't know if there were negotiations conducted by the State Department on this.  

I don't think you know any more than I do. 

Otherwise, please present and support it with evidence.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

21 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Sorry but an 'appeal to authority' doesn't cut it.

I don't know what part in negotiations she might have played. Hell, for that matter, I don't know if there were negotiations conducted by the State Department on this.  

I don't think you know any more than I do. 

Otherwise, please present and support it with evidence.

Homer, you're effectively trying to put aside established administrative procedure. There most certainly were negotiations conducted by the State Department. That's required within the structure of operation of the agency. Thus, requesting proof that the State Dep't participated in the negotiations would be superfluous. 

[WDavE 332]

It was also just a coincident that the Clinton Foundation  forgot  to report the donations from Uranium One donors to the government.

 

Which by the way is a law.....

[homersapien 11,409]

10 hours ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Homer, you're effectively trying to put aside established administrative procedure. There most certainly were negotiations conducted by the State Department. That's required within the structure of operation of the agency. Thus, requesting proof that the State Dep't participated in the negotiations would be superfluous. 

Yeah, like I said. 

[japantiger 4,051]

I think Homey is once again making the "not guilty by means of incompetence" argument...that seems to be the Democrat MO...."I didn't know about it until I read about it in the news" is the stock answer to everything.  In my company, you still get fired (incompetence not being a defense) and potentially prosecuted if money changed hands...if you are "in charge" you have authority and accountability for the outcome.  What a concept....accountability from our gov't officials.  If she didn't know, there are a fundamental lack of controls in the dept she headed that something of this magnitude could happen without her knowing about it...if she did know, then I want to know who in the world thought selling 20% of our uranium to a Russian (or any foreign) interest was a good idea....what possible logic would pass the "red faced" test on this.   Either way, I want to follow the money from anyone associated with the deal to the Clinton family or Clinton interests.  On it's face, it looks pretty clear that 9 people with a stake in the deal funneled money to the Clinton foundation....Apparently only the James Comey FBI can't find a prosecutor that would go after a case this clear.  

[homersapien 11,409]

15 minutes ago, japantiger said:

I think Homey is once again making the "not guilty by means of incompetence" argument...that seems to be the Democrat MO...."I didn't know about it until I read about it in the news" is the stock answer to everything.  In my company, you still get fired (incompetence not being a defense) and potentially prosecuted if money changed hands...if you are "in charge" you have authority and accountability for the outcome.  What a concept....accountability from our gov't officials.  If she didn't know, there are a fundamental lack of controls in the dept she headed that something of this magnitude could happen without her knowing about it...if she did know, then I want to know who in the world thought selling 20% of our uranium to a Russian (or any foreign) interest was a good idea....what possible logic would pass the "red faced" test on this.   Either way, I want to follow the money from anyone associated with the deal to the Clinton family or Clinton interests.  On it's face, it looks pretty clear that 9 people with a stake in the deal funneled money to the Clinton foundation....Apparently only the James Comey FBI can't find a prosecutor that would go after a case this clear.  

Actually, I didn't say she was "not guilty", I said we don't know what role she played, so stop weaseling.

At this point, I don't know enough about the transaction itself, much less her involvement to take a position.  Certainly not enough to declare this the "Hillary uranium deal". 

We know from the Benghazi incident that Republicans tend to over-react when it comes to anything Clinton.  I am all for ferreting out any malfeasance or wrong doing wherever it leads, but it's going to take more than right wing hysteria for me to form a conclusion.  

I don't know about the Democrats "MO", but that's mine.

[japantiger 4,051]

Yes, we know what role she played....she lead the department that approved the deal.  It's not more complicated than that......she is accountable for the actions of the dept in a criminal, administrative and civil sense.  She accepted that responsibility when she signed on and took the oath.   The only thing left to determine is was her approval from incompetence or an overt act to extort $$.