AM Joy destroys Uranium One Conspiracy Theory

[jc456]

What did Russia get out of the deal? How much of our uranium did they get? Any where near the 500 tons of highly enriched uranium that they sold to the US nuclear power industry between 1993 and 2013?

ok, why do the deal then? you're just highlighting more questions on the relevance of it all. accept addressing the 145,500,000 given to the clinton's. hmmmmmmm see for me, that is suspicious.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Anyone see the journalistic standard here?
She did not interview her guest, she lectured to him with prepared statements. Like a lawyer defending a client.

No, she took her to task on facts. The same facts that her guest should know make the narrative bullshit.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

So Hillary didn't get $145,000,000?

For what?

For selling 20% of our uranium to Russia duh

Why do you think they gave her $145,000,000...kindness?

 

[Siete]

Neither Uranium One nor ARMZ holds an NRC export license, so no uranium produced at either facility may be exported.

Despite transfer of ownership, the uranium remained in the U.S.

A key fact ignored in criticisms of Clinton’s supposed involvement in the deal is that the uranium was not — nor could it be — exported, and remained under the control of U.S.-based subsidiaries of Uranium One, according to a statementby the Nuclear Regulatory Commission:


The Uranium One deal was not Clinton’s to veto or approve

Among the ways these accusations stray from the facts is in attributing a power of veto or approval to Secretary Clinton that she simply did not have. Clinton was one of nine cabinet members and department heads that sit on the CFIUS, and the secretary of the treasury is its chairperson. CFIUS members are collectively charged with evaluating such transactions for potential national security issues, then turning their findings over to the president. By law, the committee can’t veto a transaction; only the president can.


SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO ..

Hillary couldnt make the approval of uranium transfers, AND the uranium NEVER LEFT THE COUNTRY.

ERGO;

She's guilty as hell for never doing a GODDAMN THING related to Russia/uranium.

 

[jc456]

Watch MSNBC’s Joy Reid Expertly Debunk Lies Around Uranium-Clinton Story

Reid: Who got the money when the Canadian company was sold to the Russian company? The Uranium One? Who received the money?

Kerns: I presume the company.
Reid: Yes. Okay, second question. Who approved the sale?
…
Kerns: Yes. The Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States.
Reid: How many people sit on the committee?

Kerns: Nine members.

Reid: How many have to approve a deal like this?

Kerns: All nine of them.

Reid: All nine.

Kerns: Absolutely.

Reid: How many approved this deal?

Kerns: All nine of them.

Reid: Who is the person who donated to Hillary Clinton who is related to and had an investment in uranium one? What is that person's name? Do you remember their name?

Kerns: They are board members of Uranium One donated up to $143 million I think to the Clinton Foundation.

Reid: Did he own any assets in Uranium One at the time Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State?

Kerns: You know, I don't know that, but here's what I would...

Reid: He did not. Sold them.

Kerns: Here's what i would like to know…

Reid: He sold them years before. So what you're talking about is a deal that nine members of CFIUS approved unanimously. None of them was Hillary Clinton. You have a donor who separately gave Hillary Clinton donations at a time when she was not Secretary of State. The two things cross in the night, they have no relation to each other. The members of CFIUS have been very clear Hillary Clinton had nothing to do with that approving that deal. She would have had to strong-arm eight people in order to get them to unanimously approve the deal and also the President of the United States would intervene if they saw any problems.
The CFIUS people say now that if that deal came before them today they would still approve it unanimously. There's actually nothing about the deal that's controversial. The only reason we're talking about it is because per your admission, which I think is very honest, the RNC would like us to be talking about this now.


So, to recap....9 members approved this deal and Hillary wasn' part of it. And the guy who donated to Hillary had 0 shares at the time which wouldbe benefitted him none

He sold the shares three years earlier. How long do you think it takes for a uranium deal of this magnitude to get approved? How much of the anticipation of this deal was priced into the value of the shares? A guy engaging in this type of activity is smart and he's not going to wait until the day after the deal is approved to sell his shares, he needs a great deal of distance. He was going to see a handsome profit one way or another you can be sure of it. These types of businesses and deals mean he has heavy influence at the highest degree of government (hence his massive donations to the Foundation).

If you think there is a sheer coincidence between massive payments to her Foundation and this type of deal, well, then we view the world with a different degree of skepticism. Consider how much Obama is making in speeches now. He didn't get paid this money when he was president, right? He certainly is receiving some great benefit payments now though it would seem...

No one I repeat, NO ONE can defend Clinton and her potential crimes unless record of those who contributed to the Clinton Foundation is made available to all. Considering her open ability to obstruct justice and destroy evidence, I am guessing she is not worried about any legal repercussions, she's the Teflon Don. Even Podesta in an email that as released expressed concerns about Clintons Foundation if I recall correctly.

Finally, this company was opened in Canada because of NAFTA and because businesses don't have to disclose anywhere near the degree they have to in America. This deal smells, and I can only imagine that Reagan is rolling in his grave. I can tell you this, even if there wasn't anything nefarious about this deal, it is precisely these types of deals of giving resources for nukes to a mortal enemy that drove people to vote for Trump.

No one has shown that bribes to obtain approval were ever even necessary. No one has shown that approval was in jeopardy without intervention from Clinton. No one has shown that Clinton even had any personal involvement at all.

I can tell you this, even if there wasn't anything nefarious about this deal, it is precisely these types of deals of giving resources for nukes to a mortal enemy that drove people to vote for Trump.

^ This is just ignorant blather and shows clearly just how effective disinformation is in influencing people's perceptions. It's precisely why this is even being discussed. It's a very effective diversionary tool.

The two US mines are licensed by the NRC to only sell their Uranium in the US. That hasn't changed.

here read up. the reason for the 145 million.

Inside Hillary Clinton’s Secret Takeover of the DNC

Before I called Bernie Sanders, I lit a candle in my living room and put on some gospel music. I wanted to center myself for what I knew would be an emotional phone call.

I had promised Bernie when I took the helm of the Democratic National Committee after the convention that I would get to the bottom of whether Hillary Clinton’s team had rigged the nomination process, as a cache of emails stolen by Russian hackers and posted online had suggested. I’d had my suspicions from the moment I walked in the door of the DNC a month or so earlier, based on the leaked emails. But who knew if some of them might have been forged? I needed to have solid proof, and so did Bernie.

So I followed the money. My predecessor, Florida Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, had not been the most active chair in fundraising at a time when President Barack Obama’s neglect had left the party in significant debt. As Hillary’s campaign gained momentum, she resolved the party’s debt and put it on a starvation diet. It had become dependent on her campaign for survival, for which she expected to wield control of its operations.

Debbie was not a good manager. She hadn’t been very interested in controlling the party—she let Clinton’s headquarters in Brooklyn do as it desired so she didn’t have to inform the party officers how bad the situation was. How much control Brooklyn had and for how long was still something I had been trying to uncover for the last few weeks.

By September 7, the day I called Bernie, I had found my proof and it broke my heart.

The Saturday morning after the convention in July, I called Gary Gensler, the chief financial officer of Hillary’s campaign. He wasted no words. He told me the Democratic Party was broke and $2 million in debt.

“What?” I screamed. “I am an officer of the party and they’ve been telling us everything is fine and they were raising money with no problems.”

That wasn’t true, he said. Officials from Hillary’s campaign had taken a look at the DNC’s books. Obama left the party $24 million in debt—$15 million in bank debt and more than $8 million owed to vendors after the 2012 campaign and had been paying that off very slowly. Obama’s campaign was not scheduled to pay it off until 2016. Hillary for America (the campaign) and the Hillary Victory Fund (its joint fundraising vehicle with the DNC) had taken care of 80 percent of the remaining debt in 2016, about $10 million, and had placed the party on an allowance.

If I didn’t know about this, I assumed that none of the other officers knew about it, either. That was just Debbie’s way. In my experience she didn’t come to the officers of the DNC for advice and counsel. She seemed to make decisions on her own and let us know at the last minute what she had decided, as she had done when she told us about the hacking only minutes before the Washington Post broke the news.

On the phone Gary told me the DNC had needed a $2 million loan, which the campaign had arranged.

“No! That can’t be true!” I said. “The party cannot take out a loan without the unanimous agreement of all of the officers.”

“Gary, how did they do this without me knowing?” I asked. “I don’t know how Debbie relates to the officers,” Gary said. He described the party as fully under the control of Hillary’s campaign, which seemed to confirm the suspicions of the Bernie camp. The campaign had the DNC on life support, giving it money every month to meet its basic expenses, while the campaign was using the party as a fund-raising clearing house. Under FEC law, an individual can contribute a maximum of $2,700 directly to a presidential campaign. But the limits are much higher for contributions to state parties and a party’s national committee.

Individuals who had maxed out their $2,700 contribution limit to the campaign could write an additional check for $353,400 to the Hillary Victory Fund—that figure represented $10,000 to each of the thirty-two states’ parties who were part of the Victory Fund agreement—$320,000—and $33,400 to the DNC. The money would be deposited in the states first, and transferred to the DNC shortly after that. Money in the battleground states usually stayed in that state, but all the other states funneled that money directly to the DNC, which quickly transferred the money to Brooklyn.

“Wait,” I said. “That victory fund was supposed to be for whoever was the nominee, and the state party races. You’re telling me that Hillary has been controlling it since before she got the nomination?”

Gary said the campaign had to do it or the party would collapse.

“That was the deal that Robby struck with Debbie,” he explained, referring to campaign manager Robby Mook. “It was to sustain the DNC. We sent the party nearly $20 million from September until the convention, and more to prepare for the election.”

“What’s the burn rate, Gary?” I asked. “How much money do we need every month to fund the party?”

The burn rate was $3.5 million to $4 million a month, he said.

I gasped. I had a pretty good sense of the DNC’s operations after having served as interim chair five years earlier. Back then the monthly expenses were half that. What had happened? The party chair usually shrinks the staff between presidential election campaigns, but Debbie had chosen not to do that. She had stuck lots of consultants on the DNC payroll, and Obama’s consultants were being financed by the DNC, too.

When we hung up, I was livid. Not at Gary, but at this mess I had inherited. I knew that Debbie had outsourced a lot of the management of the party and had not been the greatest at fundraising. I would not be that kind of chair, even if I was only an interim chair. Did they think I would just be a surrogate for them, get on the road and rouse up the crowds? I was going to manage this party the best I could and try to make it better, even if Brooklyn did not like this. It would be weeks before I would fully understand the financial shenanigans that were keeping the party on life support.

Right around the time of the convention the leaked emails revealed Hillary’s campaign was grabbing money from the state parties for its own purposes, leaving the states with very little to support down-ballot races. A Politico story published on May 2, 2016, described the big fund-raising vehicle she had launched through the states the summer before, quoting a vow she had made to rebuild “the party from the ground up … when our state parties are strong, we win. That’s what will happen.”

Yet the states kept less than half of 1 percent of the $82 million they had amassed from the extravagant fund-raisers Hillary’s campaign was holding, just as Gary had described to me when he and I talked in August. When the Politico story described this arrangement as “essentially … money laundering” for the Clinton campaign, Hillary’s people were outraged at being accused of doing something shady. Bernie’s people were angry for their own reasons, saying this was part of a calculated strategy to throw the nomination to Hillary.

I wanted to believe Hillary, who made campaign finance reform part of her platform, but I had made this pledge to Bernie and did not want to disappoint him. I kept asking the party lawyers and the DNC staff to show me the agreements that the party had made for sharing the money they raised, but there was a lot of shuffling of feet and looking the other way.

When I got back from a vacation in Martha’s Vineyard I at last found the document that described it all: the Joint Fund-Raising Agreement between the DNC, the Hillary Victory Fund, and Hillary for America.

The agreement—signed by Amy Dacey, the former CEO of the DNC, and Robby Mook with a copy to Marc Elias—specified that in exchange for raising money and investing in the DNC, Hillary would control the party’s finances, strategy, and all the money raised. Her campaign had the right of refusal of who would be the party communications director, and it would make final decisions on all the other staff. The DNC also was required to consult with the campaign about all other staffing, budgeting, data, analytics, and mailings.

I had been wondering why it was that I couldn’t write a press release without passing it by Brooklyn. Well, here was the answer.

When the party chooses the nominee, the custom is that the candidate’s team starts to exercise more control over the party. If the party has an incumbent candidate, as was the case with Clinton in 1996 or Obama in 2012, this kind of arrangement is seamless because the party already is under the control of the president. When you have an open contest without an incumbent and competitive primaries, the party comes under the candidate’s control only after the nominee is certain. When I was manager of Gore’s campaign in 2000, we started inserting our people into the DNC in June. This victory fund agreement, however, had been signed in August 2015, just four months after Hillary announced her candidacy and nearly a year before she officially had the nomination.

I had tried to search out any other evidence of internal corruption that would show that the DNC was rigging the system to throw the primary to Hillary, but I could not find any in party affairs or among the staff. I had gone department by department, investigating individual conduct for evidence of skewed decisions, and I was happy to see that I had found none. Then I found this agreement.

The funding arrangement with HFA and the victory fund agreement was not illegal, but it sure looked unethical. If the fight had been fair, one campaign would not have control of the party before the voters had decided which one they wanted to lead. This was not a criminal act, but as I saw it, it compromised the party’s integrity....

Of course, it appears she conveniently left out the part about how she leaked debate questions to Hillary Clinton before a debate (at least in this excerpt). Maybe she's throwing Hillary and Debbie under the bus to try and cover her own corruption as well.

Personally, I am bored by Mueller's Investigation. Nothing about the election, nothing about The Trump Campaign,.

Doesn't George Papadopoulos ring a bell?

A volunteer?

And an Unpaid of Volunteer nobody even knew existed?

You are shitting me right?

And what did "ELLIOT NESS, G MAN" charge your papa with?

He had a meeting with a professor....in London.... Legal.
He states that the professor said he had dirt on Clinton.....legal....
He disclosed the meeting with the professor.....legal...

Your Papa even documented the date and topics discussed using the proper disclosure forms.

The London Professor stated emphatically that Papadopoulos is LYING, and that he NEVER approached him with dirt on Clinton. They never even had a discussion, NOR did he introduce him to some FEMALE RELATIVE of Putin's. The professor flat out called the accusation a LAUGHING STOCK!

But when the BIG OLE BAD FBI interviewed him, he made a verbal statement about THE DATE he said he met with The Professor.

And because the lil ole unpaid volunteer got the date wrong...a date that was WRITTEN DOWN and documented, THE BIG OLE BAD GMAN falsely charged him with "LYING TO A FEDERAL OFFICIAL"

So who is lying now? The Professor, Papadopoulas, or Herr Mueller? Two of the three already called Papadopoulos a liar.....so you figure it out dummy!

Go Fuck yourself. You have got to be the Reason THE DEVIL INVENTED ABORTIONS.

You are one dumb mother fucker, and need to go punch your mother in the nose for giving birth to you.

The events Mueller is investigating all occurred years before Manafort signed on to help The Trump campaign for two and a half short months.

 

[ClosedCaption]

So Hillary didn't get $145,000,000?

For what?

For selling 20% of our uranium to Russia duh

Why do you think they gave her $145,000,000...kindness?

Who gave her the money? And how did they benefit from it?

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Watch MSNBC’s Joy Reid Expertly Debunk Lies Around Uranium-Clinton Story

Reid: Who got the money when the Canadian company was sold to the Russian company? The Uranium One? Who received the money?

Kerns: I presume the company.
Reid: Yes. Okay, second question. Who approved the sale?
…
Kerns: Yes. The Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States.
Reid: How many people sit on the committee?

Kerns: Nine members.

Reid: How many have to approve a deal like this?

Kerns: All nine of them.

Reid: All nine.

Kerns: Absolutely.

Reid: How many approved this deal?

Kerns: All nine of them.

Reid: Who is the person who donated to Hillary Clinton who is related to and had an investment in uranium one? What is that person's name? Do you remember their name?

Kerns: They are board members of Uranium One donated up to $143 million I think to the Clinton Foundation.

Reid: Did he own any assets in Uranium One at the time Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State?

Kerns: You know, I don't know that, but here's what I would...

Reid: He did not. Sold them.

Kerns: Here's what i would like to know…

Reid: He sold them years before. So what you're talking about is a deal that nine members of CFIUS approved unanimously. None of them was Hillary Clinton. You have a donor who separately gave Hillary Clinton donations at a time when she was not Secretary of State. The two things cross in the night, they have no relation to each other. The members of CFIUS have been very clear Hillary Clinton had nothing to do with that approving that deal. She would have had to strong-arm eight people in order to get them to unanimously approve the deal and also the President of the United States would intervene if they saw any problems.
The CFIUS people say now that if that deal came before them today they would still approve it unanimously. There's actually nothing about the deal that's controversial. The only reason we're talking about it is because per your admission, which I think is very honest, the RNC would like us to be talking about this now.


So, to recap....9 members approved this deal and Hillary wasn' part of it. And the guy who donated to Hillary had 0 shares at the time which wouldbe benefitted him none

Why did we need CFIUS approval if the company was not a US company

"Foreign Investment and National Security
In some cases, mergers and acquisitions by foreign firms create security concerns. OIA represents the Department of State on the Committee for Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS). CFIUS is an inter-agency committee that reviews mergers and acquisitions of U.S. business by foreigners to determine whether such transactions could affect U.S. national security. CFIUS issues an annual report to Congress."

Notice what their role is

CFIUS is an inter-agency committee that reviews mergers and acquisitions of U.S. business by foreigners to determine whether such transactions could affect U.S. national security.

So what is our investment and where is the money for said investments?

You are truly dopey, jc.
US businesses or interests in the US.
Uranium one had interests in the US. Specifically two mines.

 

[jc456]

Watch MSNBC’s Joy Reid Expertly Debunk Lies Around Uranium-Clinton Story

Reid: Who got the money when the Canadian company was sold to the Russian company? The Uranium One? Who received the money?

Kerns: I presume the company.
Reid: Yes. Okay, second question. Who approved the sale?
…
Kerns: Yes. The Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States.
Reid: How many people sit on the committee?

Kerns: Nine members.

Reid: How many have to approve a deal like this?

Kerns: All nine of them.

Reid: All nine.

Kerns: Absolutely.

Reid: How many approved this deal?

Kerns: All nine of them.

Reid: Who is the person who donated to Hillary Clinton who is related to and had an investment in uranium one? What is that person's name? Do you remember their name?

Kerns: They are board members of Uranium One donated up to $143 million I think to the Clinton Foundation.

Reid: Did he own any assets in Uranium One at the time Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State?

Kerns: You know, I don't know that, but here's what I would...

Reid: He did not. Sold them.

Kerns: Here's what i would like to know…

Reid: He sold them years before. So what you're talking about is a deal that nine members of CFIUS approved unanimously. None of them was Hillary Clinton. You have a donor who separately gave Hillary Clinton donations at a time when she was not Secretary of State. The two things cross in the night, they have no relation to each other. The members of CFIUS have been very clear Hillary Clinton had nothing to do with that approving that deal. She would have had to strong-arm eight people in order to get them to unanimously approve the deal and also the President of the United States would intervene if they saw any problems.
The CFIUS people say now that if that deal came before them today they would still approve it unanimously. There's actually nothing about the deal that's controversial. The only reason we're talking about it is because per your admission, which I think is very honest, the RNC would like us to be talking about this now.


So, to recap....9 members approved this deal and Hillary wasn' part of it. And the guy who donated to Hillary had 0 shares at the time which wouldbe benefitted him none

Why did we need CFIUS approval if the company was not a US company

"Foreign Investment and National Security
In some cases, mergers and acquisitions by foreign firms create security concerns. OIA represents the Department of State on the Committee for Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS). CFIUS is an inter-agency committee that reviews mergers and acquisitions of U.S. business by foreigners to determine whether such transactions could affect U.S. national security. CFIUS issues an annual report to Congress."

Notice what their role is

CFIUS is an inter-agency committee that reviews mergers and acquisitions of U.S. business by foreigners to determine whether such transactions could affect U.S. national security.

So what is our investment and where is the money for said investments?

You are truly dopey, jc.
US businesses or interests in the US.
Uranium one had interests in the US. Specifically two mines.

so what is it the country got out of the deal? why can't you just answer the question I asked.

 

[BlindBoo]

What did Russia get out of the deal? How much of our uranium did they get? Any where near the 500 tons of highly enriched uranium that they sold to the US nuclear power industry between 1993 and 2013?

ok, why do the deal then? you're just highlighting more questions on the relevance of it all. accept addressing the 145,500,000 given to the clinton's. hmmmmmmm see for me, that is suspicious.

Hmm, have you examined the financials of their foundation? It is public.

 

[jc456]

So Hillary didn't get $145,000,000?

For what?

For selling 20% of our uranium to Russia duh

Why do you think they gave her $145,000,000...kindness?

Who gave her the money? And how did they benefit from it?

Who gave her the money?
Exactly

And how did they benefit from it?
I just posted it, her take over of the failing DNC.


But you are saying she received 145 million, right? your statement says so. so what did she do with it?

You instead answered a question with your own question rather than answer. a true libturd thingy. I love it. you all never answer questions. funny.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

So Hillary didn't get $145,000,000?

Correct.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Watch MSNBC’s Joy Reid Expertly Debunk Lies Around Uranium-Clinton Story

Reid: Who got the money when the Canadian company was sold to the Russian company? The Uranium One? Who received the money?

Kerns: I presume the company.
Reid: Yes. Okay, second question. Who approved the sale?
…
Kerns: Yes. The Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States.
Reid: How many people sit on the committee?

Kerns: Nine members.

Reid: How many have to approve a deal like this?

Kerns: All nine of them.

Reid: All nine.

Kerns: Absolutely.

Reid: How many approved this deal?

Kerns: All nine of them.

Reid: Who is the person who donated to Hillary Clinton who is related to and had an investment in uranium one? What is that person's name? Do you remember their name?

Kerns: They are board members of Uranium One donated up to $143 million I think to the Clinton Foundation.

Reid: Did he own any assets in Uranium One at the time Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State?

Kerns: You know, I don't know that, but here's what I would...

Reid: He did not. Sold them.

Kerns: Here's what i would like to know…

Reid: He sold them years before. So what you're talking about is a deal that nine members of CFIUS approved unanimously. None of them was Hillary Clinton. You have a donor who separately gave Hillary Clinton donations at a time when she was not Secretary of State. The two things cross in the night, they have no relation to each other. The members of CFIUS have been very clear Hillary Clinton had nothing to do with that approving that deal. She would have had to strong-arm eight people in order to get them to unanimously approve the deal and also the President of the United States would intervene if they saw any problems.
The CFIUS people say now that if that deal came before them today they would still approve it unanimously. There's actually nothing about the deal that's controversial. The only reason we're talking about it is because per your admission, which I think is very honest, the RNC would like us to be talking about this now.


So, to recap....9 members approved this deal and Hillary wasn' part of it. And the guy who donated to Hillary had 0 shares at the time which wouldbe benefitted him none

He sold the shares three years earlier. How long do you think it takes for a uranium deal of this magnitude to get approved? How much of the anticipation of this deal was priced into the value of the shares? A guy engaging in this type of activity is smart and he's not going to wait until the day after the deal is approved to sell his shares, he needs a great deal of distance. He was going to see a handsome profit one way or another you can be sure of it. These types of businesses and deals mean he has heavy influence at the highest degree of government (hence his massive donations to the Foundation).

If you think there is a sheer coincidence between massive payments to her Foundation and this type of deal, well, then we view the world with a different degree of skepticism. Consider how much Obama is making in speeches now. He didn't get paid this money when he was president, right? He certainly is receiving some great benefit payments now though it would seem...

No one I repeat, NO ONE can defend Clinton and her potential crimes unless record of those who contributed to the Clinton Foundation is made available to all. Considering her open ability to obstruct justice and destroy evidence, I am guessing she is not worried about any legal repercussions, she's the Teflon Don. Even Podesta in an email that as released expressed concerns about Clintons Foundation if I recall correctly.

Finally, this company was opened in Canada because of NAFTA and because businesses don't have to disclose anywhere near the degree they have to in America. This deal smells, and I can only imagine that Reagan is rolling in his grave. I can tell you this, even if there wasn't anything nefarious about this deal, it is precisely these types of deals of giving resources for nukes to a mortal enemy that drove people to vote for Trump.

No one has shown that bribes to obtain approval were ever even necessary. No one has shown that approval was in jeopardy without intervention from Clinton. No one has shown that Clinton even had any personal involvement at all.

I can tell you this, even if there wasn't anything nefarious about this deal, it is precisely these types of deals of giving resources for nukes to a mortal enemy that drove people to vote for Trump.

^ This is just ignorant blather and shows clearly just how effective disinformation is in influencing people's perceptions. It's precisely why this is even being discussed. It's a very effective diversionary tool.

The two US mines are licensed by the NRC to only sell their Uranium in the US. That hasn't changed.

here read up. the reason for the 145 million.

Inside Hillary Clinton’s Secret Takeover of the DNC

Before I called Bernie Sanders, I lit a candle in my living room and put on some gospel music. I wanted to center myself for what I knew would be an emotional phone call.

I had promised Bernie when I took the helm of the Democratic National Committee after the convention that I would get to the bottom of whether Hillary Clinton’s team had rigged the nomination process, as a cache of emails stolen by Russian hackers and posted online had suggested. I’d had my suspicions from the moment I walked in the door of the DNC a month or so earlier, based on the leaked emails. But who knew if some of them might have been forged? I needed to have solid proof, and so did Bernie.

So I followed the money. My predecessor, Florida Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, had not been the most active chair in fundraising at a time when President Barack Obama’s neglect had left the party in significant debt. As Hillary’s campaign gained momentum, she resolved the party’s debt and put it on a starvation diet. It had become dependent on her campaign for survival, for which she expected to wield control of its operations.

Debbie was not a good manager. She hadn’t been very interested in controlling the party—she let Clinton’s headquarters in Brooklyn do as it desired so she didn’t have to inform the party officers how bad the situation was. How much control Brooklyn had and for how long was still something I had been trying to uncover for the last few weeks.

By September 7, the day I called Bernie, I had found my proof and it broke my heart.

The Saturday morning after the convention in July, I called Gary Gensler, the chief financial officer of Hillary’s campaign. He wasted no words. He told me the Democratic Party was broke and $2 million in debt.

“What?” I screamed. “I am an officer of the party and they’ve been telling us everything is fine and they were raising money with no problems.”

That wasn’t true, he said. Officials from Hillary’s campaign had taken a look at the DNC’s books. Obama left the party $24 million in debt—$15 million in bank debt and more than $8 million owed to vendors after the 2012 campaign and had been paying that off very slowly. Obama’s campaign was not scheduled to pay it off until 2016. Hillary for America (the campaign) and the Hillary Victory Fund (its joint fundraising vehicle with the DNC) had taken care of 80 percent of the remaining debt in 2016, about $10 million, and had placed the party on an allowance.

If I didn’t know about this, I assumed that none of the other officers knew about it, either. That was just Debbie’s way. In my experience she didn’t come to the officers of the DNC for advice and counsel. She seemed to make decisions on her own and let us know at the last minute what she had decided, as she had done when she told us about the hacking only minutes before the Washington Post broke the news.

On the phone Gary told me the DNC had needed a $2 million loan, which the campaign had arranged.

“No! That can’t be true!” I said. “The party cannot take out a loan without the unanimous agreement of all of the officers.”

“Gary, how did they do this without me knowing?” I asked. “I don’t know how Debbie relates to the officers,” Gary said. He described the party as fully under the control of Hillary’s campaign, which seemed to confirm the suspicions of the Bernie camp. The campaign had the DNC on life support, giving it money every month to meet its basic expenses, while the campaign was using the party as a fund-raising clearing house. Under FEC law, an individual can contribute a maximum of $2,700 directly to a presidential campaign. But the limits are much higher for contributions to state parties and a party’s national committee.

Individuals who had maxed out their $2,700 contribution limit to the campaign could write an additional check for $353,400 to the Hillary Victory Fund—that figure represented $10,000 to each of the thirty-two states’ parties who were part of the Victory Fund agreement—$320,000—and $33,400 to the DNC. The money would be deposited in the states first, and transferred to the DNC shortly after that. Money in the battleground states usually stayed in that state, but all the other states funneled that money directly to the DNC, which quickly transferred the money to Brooklyn.

“Wait,” I said. “That victory fund was supposed to be for whoever was the nominee, and the state party races. You’re telling me that Hillary has been controlling it since before she got the nomination?”

Gary said the campaign had to do it or the party would collapse.

“That was the deal that Robby struck with Debbie,” he explained, referring to campaign manager Robby Mook. “It was to sustain the DNC. We sent the party nearly $20 million from September until the convention, and more to prepare for the election.”

“What’s the burn rate, Gary?” I asked. “How much money do we need every month to fund the party?”

The burn rate was $3.5 million to $4 million a month, he said.

I gasped. I had a pretty good sense of the DNC’s operations after having served as interim chair five years earlier. Back then the monthly expenses were half that. What had happened? The party chair usually shrinks the staff between presidential election campaigns, but Debbie had chosen not to do that. She had stuck lots of consultants on the DNC payroll, and Obama’s consultants were being financed by the DNC, too.

When we hung up, I was livid. Not at Gary, but at this mess I had inherited. I knew that Debbie had outsourced a lot of the management of the party and had not been the greatest at fundraising. I would not be that kind of chair, even if I was only an interim chair. Did they think I would just be a surrogate for them, get on the road and rouse up the crowds? I was going to manage this party the best I could and try to make it better, even if Brooklyn did not like this. It would be weeks before I would fully understand the financial shenanigans that were keeping the party on life support.

Right around the time of the convention the leaked emails revealed Hillary’s campaign was grabbing money from the state parties for its own purposes, leaving the states with very little to support down-ballot races. A Politico story published on May 2, 2016, described the big fund-raising vehicle she had launched through the states the summer before, quoting a vow she had made to rebuild “the party from the ground up … when our state parties are strong, we win. That’s what will happen.”

Yet the states kept less than half of 1 percent of the $82 million they had amassed from the extravagant fund-raisers Hillary’s campaign was holding, just as Gary had described to me when he and I talked in August. When the Politico story described this arrangement as “essentially … money laundering” for the Clinton campaign, Hillary’s people were outraged at being accused of doing something shady. Bernie’s people were angry for their own reasons, saying this was part of a calculated strategy to throw the nomination to Hillary.

I wanted to believe Hillary, who made campaign finance reform part of her platform, but I had made this pledge to Bernie and did not want to disappoint him. I kept asking the party lawyers and the DNC staff to show me the agreements that the party had made for sharing the money they raised, but there was a lot of shuffling of feet and looking the other way.

When I got back from a vacation in Martha’s Vineyard I at last found the document that described it all: the Joint Fund-Raising Agreement between the DNC, the Hillary Victory Fund, and Hillary for America.

The agreement—signed by Amy Dacey, the former CEO of the DNC, and Robby Mook with a copy to Marc Elias—specified that in exchange for raising money and investing in the DNC, Hillary would control the party’s finances, strategy, and all the money raised. Her campaign had the right of refusal of who would be the party communications director, and it would make final decisions on all the other staff. The DNC also was required to consult with the campaign about all other staffing, budgeting, data, analytics, and mailings.

I had been wondering why it was that I couldn’t write a press release without passing it by Brooklyn. Well, here was the answer.

When the party chooses the nominee, the custom is that the candidate’s team starts to exercise more control over the party. If the party has an incumbent candidate, as was the case with Clinton in 1996 or Obama in 2012, this kind of arrangement is seamless because the party already is under the control of the president. When you have an open contest without an incumbent and competitive primaries, the party comes under the candidate’s control only after the nominee is certain. When I was manager of Gore’s campaign in 2000, we started inserting our people into the DNC in June. This victory fund agreement, however, had been signed in August 2015, just four months after Hillary announced her candidacy and nearly a year before she officially had the nomination.

I had tried to search out any other evidence of internal corruption that would show that the DNC was rigging the system to throw the primary to Hillary, but I could not find any in party affairs or among the staff. I had gone department by department, investigating individual conduct for evidence of skewed decisions, and I was happy to see that I had found none. Then I found this agreement.

The funding arrangement with HFA and the victory fund agreement was not illegal, but it sure looked unethical. If the fight had been fair, one campaign would not have control of the party before the voters had decided which one they wanted to lead. This was not a criminal act, but as I saw it, it compromised the party’s integrity....

Of course, it appears she conveniently left out the part about how she leaked debate questions to Hillary Clinton before a debate (at least in this excerpt). Maybe she's throwing Hillary and Debbie under the bus to try and cover her own corruption as well.

Personally, I am bored by Mueller's Investigation. Nothing about the election, nothing about The Trump Campaign,.

Doesn't George Papadopoulos ring a bell?

A volunteer?

And an Unpaid of Volunteer nobody even knew existed?

You are shitting me right?

And what did "ELLIOT NESS, G MAN" charge your papa with?

He had a meeting with a professor....in London.... Legal.
He states that the professor said he had dirt on Clinton.....legal....
He disclosed the meeting with the professor.....legal...

Your Papa even documented the date and topics discussed using the proper disclosure forms.

The London Professor stated emphatically that Papadopoulos is LYING, and that he NEVER approached him with dirt on Clinton. They never even had a discussion, NOR did he introduce him to some FEMALE RELATIVE of Putin's. The professor flat out called the accusation a LAUGHING STOCK!

But when the BIG OLE BAD FBI interviewed him, he made a verbal statement about THE DATE he said he met with The Professor.

And because the lil ole unpaid volunteer got the date wrong...a date that was WRITTEN DOWN and documented, THE BIG OLE BAD GMAN falsely charged him with "LYING TO A FEDERAL OFFICIAL"

So who is lying now? The Professor, Papadopoulas, or Herr Mueller? Two of the three already called Papadopoulos a liar.....so you figure it out dummy!

Go Fuck yourself. You have got to be the Reason THE DEVIL INVENTED ABORTIONS.

You are one dumb mother fucker, and need to go punch your mother in the nose for giving birth to you.

The events Mueller is investigating all occurred years before Manafort signed on to help The Trump campaign for two and a half short months.

What is all of this CONvoluted nonsense?

 

[tyroneweaver]

Watch MSNBC’s Joy Reid Expertly Debunk Lies Around Uranium-Clinton Story

Reid: Who got the money when the Canadian company was sold to the Russian company? The Uranium One? Who received the money?

Kerns: I presume the company.
Reid: Yes. Okay, second question. Who approved the sale?
…
Kerns: Yes. The Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States.
Reid: How many people sit on the committee?

Kerns: Nine members.

Reid: How many have to approve a deal like this?

Kerns: All nine of them.

Reid: All nine.

Kerns: Absolutely.

Reid: How many approved this deal?

Kerns: All nine of them.

Reid: Who is the person who donated to Hillary Clinton who is related to and had an investment in uranium one? What is that person's name? Do you remember their name?

Kerns: They are board members of Uranium One donated up to $143 million I think to the Clinton Foundation.

Reid: Did he own any assets in Uranium One at the time Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State?

Kerns: You know, I don't know that, but here's what I would...

Reid: He did not. Sold them.

Kerns: Here's what i would like to know…

Reid: He sold them years before. So what you're talking about is a deal that nine members of CFIUS approved unanimously. None of them was Hillary Clinton. You have a donor who separately gave Hillary Clinton donations at a time when she was not Secretary of State. The two things cross in the night, they have no relation to each other. The members of CFIUS have been very clear Hillary Clinton had nothing to do with that approving that deal. She would have had to strong-arm eight people in order to get them to unanimously approve the deal and also the President of the United States would intervene if they saw any problems.
The CFIUS people say now that if that deal came before them today they would still approve it unanimously. There's actually nothing about the deal that's controversial. The only reason we're talking about it is because per your admission, which I think is very honest, the RNC would like us to be talking about this now.


So, to recap....9 members approved this deal and Hillary wasn' part of it. And the guy who donated to Hillary had 0 shares at the time which wouldbe benefitted him none

And this is your apologetic???
roflmbo

 

[Hutch Starskey]

What did Russia get out of the deal? How much of our uranium did they get? Any where near the 500 tons of highly enriched uranium that they sold to the US nuclear power industry between 1993 and 2013?

How much of our uranium did they get?

Zero.

 

[jc456]

Watch MSNBC’s Joy Reid Expertly Debunk Lies Around Uranium-Clinton Story

Reid: Who got the money when the Canadian company was sold to the Russian company? The Uranium One? Who received the money?

Kerns: I presume the company.
Reid: Yes. Okay, second question. Who approved the sale?
…
Kerns: Yes. The Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States.
Reid: How many people sit on the committee?

Kerns: Nine members.

Reid: How many have to approve a deal like this?

Kerns: All nine of them.

Reid: All nine.

Kerns: Absolutely.

Reid: How many approved this deal?

Kerns: All nine of them.

Reid: Who is the person who donated to Hillary Clinton who is related to and had an investment in uranium one? What is that person's name? Do you remember their name?

Kerns: They are board members of Uranium One donated up to $143 million I think to the Clinton Foundation.

Reid: Did he own any assets in Uranium One at the time Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State?

Kerns: You know, I don't know that, but here's what I would...

Reid: He did not. Sold them.

Kerns: Here's what i would like to know…

Reid: He sold them years before. So what you're talking about is a deal that nine members of CFIUS approved unanimously. None of them was Hillary Clinton. You have a donor who separately gave Hillary Clinton donations at a time when she was not Secretary of State. The two things cross in the night, they have no relation to each other. The members of CFIUS have been very clear Hillary Clinton had nothing to do with that approving that deal. She would have had to strong-arm eight people in order to get them to unanimously approve the deal and also the President of the United States would intervene if they saw any problems.
The CFIUS people say now that if that deal came before them today they would still approve it unanimously. There's actually nothing about the deal that's controversial. The only reason we're talking about it is because per your admission, which I think is very honest, the RNC would like us to be talking about this now.


So, to recap....9 members approved this deal and Hillary wasn' part of it. And the guy who donated to Hillary had 0 shares at the time which wouldbe benefitted him none

He sold the shares three years earlier. How long do you think it takes for a uranium deal of this magnitude to get approved? How much of the anticipation of this deal was priced into the value of the shares? A guy engaging in this type of activity is smart and he's not going to wait until the day after the deal is approved to sell his shares, he needs a great deal of distance. He was going to see a handsome profit one way or another you can be sure of it. These types of businesses and deals mean he has heavy influence at the highest degree of government (hence his massive donations to the Foundation).

If you think there is a sheer coincidence between massive payments to her Foundation and this type of deal, well, then we view the world with a different degree of skepticism. Consider how much Obama is making in speeches now. He didn't get paid this money when he was president, right? He certainly is receiving some great benefit payments now though it would seem...

No one I repeat, NO ONE can defend Clinton and her potential crimes unless record of those who contributed to the Clinton Foundation is made available to all. Considering her open ability to obstruct justice and destroy evidence, I am guessing she is not worried about any legal repercussions, she's the Teflon Don. Even Podesta in an email that as released expressed concerns about Clintons Foundation if I recall correctly.

Finally, this company was opened in Canada because of NAFTA and because businesses don't have to disclose anywhere near the degree they have to in America. This deal smells, and I can only imagine that Reagan is rolling in his grave. I can tell you this, even if there wasn't anything nefarious about this deal, it is precisely these types of deals of giving resources for nukes to a mortal enemy that drove people to vote for Trump.

No one has shown that bribes to obtain approval were ever even necessary. No one has shown that approval was in jeopardy without intervention from Clinton. No one has shown that Clinton even had any personal involvement at all.

I can tell you this, even if there wasn't anything nefarious about this deal, it is precisely these types of deals of giving resources for nukes to a mortal enemy that drove people to vote for Trump.

^ This is just ignorant blather and shows clearly just how effective disinformation is in influencing people's perceptions. It's precisely why this is even being discussed. It's a very effective diversionary tool.

The two US mines are licensed by the NRC to only sell their Uranium in the US. That hasn't changed.

here read up. the reason for the 145 million.

Inside Hillary Clinton’s Secret Takeover of the DNC

Before I called Bernie Sanders, I lit a candle in my living room and put on some gospel music. I wanted to center myself for what I knew would be an emotional phone call.

I had promised Bernie when I took the helm of the Democratic National Committee after the convention that I would get to the bottom of whether Hillary Clinton’s team had rigged the nomination process, as a cache of emails stolen by Russian hackers and posted online had suggested. I’d had my suspicions from the moment I walked in the door of the DNC a month or so earlier, based on the leaked emails. But who knew if some of them might have been forged? I needed to have solid proof, and so did Bernie.

So I followed the money. My predecessor, Florida Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, had not been the most active chair in fundraising at a time when President Barack Obama’s neglect had left the party in significant debt. As Hillary’s campaign gained momentum, she resolved the party’s debt and put it on a starvation diet. It had become dependent on her campaign for survival, for which she expected to wield control of its operations.

Debbie was not a good manager. She hadn’t been very interested in controlling the party—she let Clinton’s headquarters in Brooklyn do as it desired so she didn’t have to inform the party officers how bad the situation was. How much control Brooklyn had and for how long was still something I had been trying to uncover for the last few weeks.

By September 7, the day I called Bernie, I had found my proof and it broke my heart.

The Saturday morning after the convention in July, I called Gary Gensler, the chief financial officer of Hillary’s campaign. He wasted no words. He told me the Democratic Party was broke and $2 million in debt.

“What?” I screamed. “I am an officer of the party and they’ve been telling us everything is fine and they were raising money with no problems.”

That wasn’t true, he said. Officials from Hillary’s campaign had taken a look at the DNC’s books. Obama left the party $24 million in debt—$15 million in bank debt and more than $8 million owed to vendors after the 2012 campaign and had been paying that off very slowly. Obama’s campaign was not scheduled to pay it off until 2016. Hillary for America (the campaign) and the Hillary Victory Fund (its joint fundraising vehicle with the DNC) had taken care of 80 percent of the remaining debt in 2016, about $10 million, and had placed the party on an allowance.

If I didn’t know about this, I assumed that none of the other officers knew about it, either. That was just Debbie’s way. In my experience she didn’t come to the officers of the DNC for advice and counsel. She seemed to make decisions on her own and let us know at the last minute what she had decided, as she had done when she told us about the hacking only minutes before the Washington Post broke the news.

On the phone Gary told me the DNC had needed a $2 million loan, which the campaign had arranged.

“No! That can’t be true!” I said. “The party cannot take out a loan without the unanimous agreement of all of the officers.”

“Gary, how did they do this without me knowing?” I asked. “I don’t know how Debbie relates to the officers,” Gary said. He described the party as fully under the control of Hillary’s campaign, which seemed to confirm the suspicions of the Bernie camp. The campaign had the DNC on life support, giving it money every month to meet its basic expenses, while the campaign was using the party as a fund-raising clearing house. Under FEC law, an individual can contribute a maximum of $2,700 directly to a presidential campaign. But the limits are much higher for contributions to state parties and a party’s national committee.

Individuals who had maxed out their $2,700 contribution limit to the campaign could write an additional check for $353,400 to the Hillary Victory Fund—that figure represented $10,000 to each of the thirty-two states’ parties who were part of the Victory Fund agreement—$320,000—and $33,400 to the DNC. The money would be deposited in the states first, and transferred to the DNC shortly after that. Money in the battleground states usually stayed in that state, but all the other states funneled that money directly to the DNC, which quickly transferred the money to Brooklyn.

“Wait,” I said. “That victory fund was supposed to be for whoever was the nominee, and the state party races. You’re telling me that Hillary has been controlling it since before she got the nomination?”

Gary said the campaign had to do it or the party would collapse.

“That was the deal that Robby struck with Debbie,” he explained, referring to campaign manager Robby Mook. “It was to sustain the DNC. We sent the party nearly $20 million from September until the convention, and more to prepare for the election.”

“What’s the burn rate, Gary?” I asked. “How much money do we need every month to fund the party?”

The burn rate was $3.5 million to $4 million a month, he said.

I gasped. I had a pretty good sense of the DNC’s operations after having served as interim chair five years earlier. Back then the monthly expenses were half that. What had happened? The party chair usually shrinks the staff between presidential election campaigns, but Debbie had chosen not to do that. She had stuck lots of consultants on the DNC payroll, and Obama’s consultants were being financed by the DNC, too.

When we hung up, I was livid. Not at Gary, but at this mess I had inherited. I knew that Debbie had outsourced a lot of the management of the party and had not been the greatest at fundraising. I would not be that kind of chair, even if I was only an interim chair. Did they think I would just be a surrogate for them, get on the road and rouse up the crowds? I was going to manage this party the best I could and try to make it better, even if Brooklyn did not like this. It would be weeks before I would fully understand the financial shenanigans that were keeping the party on life support.

Right around the time of the convention the leaked emails revealed Hillary’s campaign was grabbing money from the state parties for its own purposes, leaving the states with very little to support down-ballot races. A Politico story published on May 2, 2016, described the big fund-raising vehicle she had launched through the states the summer before, quoting a vow she had made to rebuild “the party from the ground up … when our state parties are strong, we win. That’s what will happen.”

Yet the states kept less than half of 1 percent of the $82 million they had amassed from the extravagant fund-raisers Hillary’s campaign was holding, just as Gary had described to me when he and I talked in August. When the Politico story described this arrangement as “essentially … money laundering” for the Clinton campaign, Hillary’s people were outraged at being accused of doing something shady. Bernie’s people were angry for their own reasons, saying this was part of a calculated strategy to throw the nomination to Hillary.

I wanted to believe Hillary, who made campaign finance reform part of her platform, but I had made this pledge to Bernie and did not want to disappoint him. I kept asking the party lawyers and the DNC staff to show me the agreements that the party had made for sharing the money they raised, but there was a lot of shuffling of feet and looking the other way.

When I got back from a vacation in Martha’s Vineyard I at last found the document that described it all: the Joint Fund-Raising Agreement between the DNC, the Hillary Victory Fund, and Hillary for America.

The agreement—signed by Amy Dacey, the former CEO of the DNC, and Robby Mook with a copy to Marc Elias—specified that in exchange for raising money and investing in the DNC, Hillary would control the party’s finances, strategy, and all the money raised. Her campaign had the right of refusal of who would be the party communications director, and it would make final decisions on all the other staff. The DNC also was required to consult with the campaign about all other staffing, budgeting, data, analytics, and mailings.

I had been wondering why it was that I couldn’t write a press release without passing it by Brooklyn. Well, here was the answer.

When the party chooses the nominee, the custom is that the candidate’s team starts to exercise more control over the party. If the party has an incumbent candidate, as was the case with Clinton in 1996 or Obama in 2012, this kind of arrangement is seamless because the party already is under the control of the president. When you have an open contest without an incumbent and competitive primaries, the party comes under the candidate’s control only after the nominee is certain. When I was manager of Gore’s campaign in 2000, we started inserting our people into the DNC in June. This victory fund agreement, however, had been signed in August 2015, just four months after Hillary announced her candidacy and nearly a year before she officially had the nomination.

I had tried to search out any other evidence of internal corruption that would show that the DNC was rigging the system to throw the primary to Hillary, but I could not find any in party affairs or among the staff. I had gone department by department, investigating individual conduct for evidence of skewed decisions, and I was happy to see that I had found none. Then I found this agreement.

The funding arrangement with HFA and the victory fund agreement was not illegal, but it sure looked unethical. If the fight had been fair, one campaign would not have control of the party before the voters had decided which one they wanted to lead. This was not a criminal act, but as I saw it, it compromised the party’s integrity....

Of course, it appears she conveniently left out the part about how she leaked debate questions to Hillary Clinton before a debate (at least in this excerpt). Maybe she's throwing Hillary and Debbie under the bus to try and cover her own corruption as well.

Personally, I am bored by Mueller's Investigation. Nothing about the election, nothing about The Trump Campaign,.

Doesn't George Papadopoulos ring a bell?

A volunteer?

And an Unpaid of Volunteer nobody even knew existed?

You are shitting me right?

And what did "ELLIOT NESS, G MAN" charge your papa with?

He had a meeting with a professor....in London.... Legal.
He states that the professor said he had dirt on Clinton.....legal....
He disclosed the meeting with the professor.....legal...

Your Papa even documented the date and topics discussed using the proper disclosure forms.

The London Professor stated emphatically that Papadopoulos is LYING, and that he NEVER approached him with dirt on Clinton. They never even had a discussion, NOR did he introduce him to some FEMALE RELATIVE of Putin's. The professor flat out called the accusation a LAUGHING STOCK!

But when the BIG OLE BAD FBI interviewed him, he made a verbal statement about THE DATE he said he met with The Professor.

And because the lil ole unpaid volunteer got the date wrong...a date that was WRITTEN DOWN and documented, THE BIG OLE BAD GMAN falsely charged him with "LYING TO A FEDERAL OFFICIAL"

So who is lying now? The Professor, Papadopoulas, or Herr Mueller? Two of the three already called Papadopoulos a liar.....so you figure it out dummy!

Go Fuck yourself. You have got to be the Reason THE DEVIL INVENTED ABORTIONS.

You are one dumb mother fucker, and need to go punch your mother in the nose for giving birth to you.

The events Mueller is investigating all occurred years before Manafort signed on to help The Trump campaign for two and a half short months.

What is all of this CONvoluted nonsense?

well what you didn't understand was the 145 million was to allow hitlery to control the DNC. I felt that was extremely obvious.

you know, the payment for the mine thingy.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Watch MSNBC’s Joy Reid Expertly Debunk Lies Around Uranium-Clinton Story

Reid: Who got the money when the Canadian company was sold to the Russian company? The Uranium One? Who received the money?

Kerns: I presume the company.
Reid: Yes. Okay, second question. Who approved the sale?
…
Kerns: Yes. The Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States.
Reid: How many people sit on the committee?

Kerns: Nine members.

Reid: How many have to approve a deal like this?

Kerns: All nine of them.

Reid: All nine.

Kerns: Absolutely.

Reid: How many approved this deal?

Kerns: All nine of them.

Reid: Who is the person who donated to Hillary Clinton who is related to and had an investment in uranium one? What is that person's name? Do you remember their name?

Kerns: They are board members of Uranium One donated up to $143 million I think to the Clinton Foundation.

Reid: Did he own any assets in Uranium One at the time Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State?

Kerns: You know, I don't know that, but here's what I would...

Reid: He did not. Sold them.

Kerns: Here's what i would like to know…

Reid: He sold them years before. So what you're talking about is a deal that nine members of CFIUS approved unanimously. None of them was Hillary Clinton. You have a donor who separately gave Hillary Clinton donations at a time when she was not Secretary of State. The two things cross in the night, they have no relation to each other. The members of CFIUS have been very clear Hillary Clinton had nothing to do with that approving that deal. She would have had to strong-arm eight people in order to get them to unanimously approve the deal and also the President of the United States would intervene if they saw any problems.
The CFIUS people say now that if that deal came before them today they would still approve it unanimously. There's actually nothing about the deal that's controversial. The only reason we're talking about it is because per your admission, which I think is very honest, the RNC would like us to be talking about this now.


So, to recap....9 members approved this deal and Hillary wasn' part of it. And the guy who donated to Hillary had 0 shares at the time which wouldbe benefitted him none

Why did we need CFIUS approval if the company was not a US company

"Foreign Investment and National Security
In some cases, mergers and acquisitions by foreign firms create security concerns. OIA represents the Department of State on the Committee for Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS). CFIUS is an inter-agency committee that reviews mergers and acquisitions of U.S. business by foreigners to determine whether such transactions could affect U.S. national security. CFIUS issues an annual report to Congress."

Notice what their role is

CFIUS is an inter-agency committee that reviews mergers and acquisitions of U.S. business by foreigners to determine whether such transactions could affect U.S. national security.

So what is our investment and where is the money for said investments?

You are truly dopey, jc.
US businesses or interests in the US.
Uranium one had interests in the US. Specifically two mines.

so what is it the country got out of the deal? why can't you just answer the question I asked.

There was nothing to be gotten or due the US in this deal.

It was a purchase of one foreign company by another foreign company. It only required approval because there were interests within the US.

Get it now, dope?

 

[ClosedCaption]

So Hillary didn't get $145,000,000?

For what?

For selling 20% of our uranium to Russia duh

Why do you think they gave her $145,000,000...kindness?

Who gave her the money? And how did they benefit from it?

Who gave her the money?
Exactly

And how did they benefit from it?
I just posted it, her take over of the failing DNC.


But you are saying she received 145 million, right? your statement says so. so what did she do with it?

You instead answered a question with your own question rather than answer. a true libturd thingy. I love it. you all never answer questions. funny.

You, at some point have to make statements and stop with the leading questions. What she did with any money doesn't prove that anything wrong was done. In act you haven't stated one wrong thing...you'e just asking questions like "why now?" "What for?" And thinks that means something.

 

[jc456]

Watch MSNBC’s Joy Reid Expertly Debunk Lies Around Uranium-Clinton Story

Reid: Who got the money when the Canadian company was sold to the Russian company? The Uranium One? Who received the money?

Kerns: I presume the company.
Reid: Yes. Okay, second question. Who approved the sale?
…
Kerns: Yes. The Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States.
Reid: How many people sit on the committee?

Kerns: Nine members.

Reid: How many have to approve a deal like this?

Kerns: All nine of them.

Reid: All nine.

Kerns: Absolutely.

Reid: How many approved this deal?

Kerns: All nine of them.

Reid: Who is the person who donated to Hillary Clinton who is related to and had an investment in uranium one? What is that person's name? Do you remember their name?

Kerns: They are board members of Uranium One donated up to $143 million I think to the Clinton Foundation.

Reid: Did he own any assets in Uranium One at the time Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State?

Kerns: You know, I don't know that, but here's what I would...

Reid: He did not. Sold them.

Kerns: Here's what i would like to know…

Reid: He sold them years before. So what you're talking about is a deal that nine members of CFIUS approved unanimously. None of them was Hillary Clinton. You have a donor who separately gave Hillary Clinton donations at a time when she was not Secretary of State. The two things cross in the night, they have no relation to each other. The members of CFIUS have been very clear Hillary Clinton had nothing to do with that approving that deal. She would have had to strong-arm eight people in order to get them to unanimously approve the deal and also the President of the United States would intervene if they saw any problems.
The CFIUS people say now that if that deal came before them today they would still approve it unanimously. There's actually nothing about the deal that's controversial. The only reason we're talking about it is because per your admission, which I think is very honest, the RNC would like us to be talking about this now.


So, to recap....9 members approved this deal and Hillary wasn' part of it. And the guy who donated to Hillary had 0 shares at the time which wouldbe benefitted him none

Why did we need CFIUS approval if the company was not a US company

"Foreign Investment and National Security
In some cases, mergers and acquisitions by foreign firms create security concerns. OIA represents the Department of State on the Committee for Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS). CFIUS is an inter-agency committee that reviews mergers and acquisitions of U.S. business by foreigners to determine whether such transactions could affect U.S. national security. CFIUS issues an annual report to Congress."

Notice what their role is

CFIUS is an inter-agency committee that reviews mergers and acquisitions of U.S. business by foreigners to determine whether such transactions could affect U.S. national security.

So what is our investment and where is the money for said investments?

You are truly dopey, jc.
US businesses or interests in the US.
Uranium one had interests in the US. Specifically two mines.

so what is it the country got out of the deal? why can't you just answer the question I asked.

There was nothing to be gotten or due the US in this deal.

It was a purchase of one foreign company by another foreign company. It only required approval because there were interests within the US.

Get it now, dope?

what were those issues? and why the limitations on getting yellow cake out of our country. which has happened?

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Watch MSNBC’s Joy Reid Expertly Debunk Lies Around Uranium-Clinton Story

Reid: Who got the money when the Canadian company was sold to the Russian company? The Uranium One? Who received the money?

Kerns: I presume the company.
Reid: Yes. Okay, second question. Who approved the sale?
…
Kerns: Yes. The Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States.
Reid: How many people sit on the committee?

Kerns: Nine members.

Reid: How many have to approve a deal like this?

Kerns: All nine of them.

Reid: All nine.

Kerns: Absolutely.

Reid: How many approved this deal?

Kerns: All nine of them.

Reid: Who is the person who donated to Hillary Clinton who is related to and had an investment in uranium one? What is that person's name? Do you remember their name?

Kerns: They are board members of Uranium One donated up to $143 million I think to the Clinton Foundation.

Reid: Did he own any assets in Uranium One at the time Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State?

Kerns: You know, I don't know that, but here's what I would...

Reid: He did not. Sold them.

Kerns: Here's what i would like to know…

Reid: He sold them years before. So what you're talking about is a deal that nine members of CFIUS approved unanimously. None of them was Hillary Clinton. You have a donor who separately gave Hillary Clinton donations at a time when she was not Secretary of State. The two things cross in the night, they have no relation to each other. The members of CFIUS have been very clear Hillary Clinton had nothing to do with that approving that deal. She would have had to strong-arm eight people in order to get them to unanimously approve the deal and also the President of the United States would intervene if they saw any problems.
The CFIUS people say now that if that deal came before them today they would still approve it unanimously. There's actually nothing about the deal that's controversial. The only reason we're talking about it is because per your admission, which I think is very honest, the RNC would like us to be talking about this now.


So, to recap....9 members approved this deal and Hillary wasn' part of it. And the guy who donated to Hillary had 0 shares at the time which wouldbe benefitted him none

He sold the shares three years earlier. How long do you think it takes for a uranium deal of this magnitude to get approved? How much of the anticipation of this deal was priced into the value of the shares? A guy engaging in this type of activity is smart and he's not going to wait until the day after the deal is approved to sell his shares, he needs a great deal of distance. He was going to see a handsome profit one way or another you can be sure of it. These types of businesses and deals mean he has heavy influence at the highest degree of government (hence his massive donations to the Foundation).

If you think there is a sheer coincidence between massive payments to her Foundation and this type of deal, well, then we view the world with a different degree of skepticism. Consider how much Obama is making in speeches now. He didn't get paid this money when he was president, right? He certainly is receiving some great benefit payments now though it would seem...

No one I repeat, NO ONE can defend Clinton and her potential crimes unless record of those who contributed to the Clinton Foundation is made available to all. Considering her open ability to obstruct justice and destroy evidence, I am guessing she is not worried about any legal repercussions, she's the Teflon Don. Even Podesta in an email that as released expressed concerns about Clintons Foundation if I recall correctly.

Finally, this company was opened in Canada because of NAFTA and because businesses don't have to disclose anywhere near the degree they have to in America. This deal smells, and I can only imagine that Reagan is rolling in his grave. I can tell you this, even if there wasn't anything nefarious about this deal, it is precisely these types of deals of giving resources for nukes to a mortal enemy that drove people to vote for Trump.

No one has shown that bribes to obtain approval were ever even necessary. No one has shown that approval was in jeopardy without intervention from Clinton. No one has shown that Clinton even had any personal involvement at all.

I can tell you this, even if there wasn't anything nefarious about this deal, it is precisely these types of deals of giving resources for nukes to a mortal enemy that drove people to vote for Trump.

^ This is just ignorant blather and shows clearly just how effective disinformation is in influencing people's perceptions. It's precisely why this is even being discussed. It's a very effective diversionary tool.

The two US mines are licensed by the NRC to only sell their Uranium in the US. That hasn't changed.

here read up. the reason for the 145 million.

Inside Hillary Clinton’s Secret Takeover of the DNC

Before I called Bernie Sanders, I lit a candle in my living room and put on some gospel music. I wanted to center myself for what I knew would be an emotional phone call.

I had promised Bernie when I took the helm of the Democratic National Committee after the convention that I would get to the bottom of whether Hillary Clinton’s team had rigged the nomination process, as a cache of emails stolen by Russian hackers and posted online had suggested. I’d had my suspicions from the moment I walked in the door of the DNC a month or so earlier, based on the leaked emails. But who knew if some of them might have been forged? I needed to have solid proof, and so did Bernie.

So I followed the money. My predecessor, Florida Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, had not been the most active chair in fundraising at a time when President Barack Obama’s neglect had left the party in significant debt. As Hillary’s campaign gained momentum, she resolved the party’s debt and put it on a starvation diet. It had become dependent on her campaign for survival, for which she expected to wield control of its operations.

Debbie was not a good manager. She hadn’t been very interested in controlling the party—she let Clinton’s headquarters in Brooklyn do as it desired so she didn’t have to inform the party officers how bad the situation was. How much control Brooklyn had and for how long was still something I had been trying to uncover for the last few weeks.

By September 7, the day I called Bernie, I had found my proof and it broke my heart.

The Saturday morning after the convention in July, I called Gary Gensler, the chief financial officer of Hillary’s campaign. He wasted no words. He told me the Democratic Party was broke and $2 million in debt.

“What?” I screamed. “I am an officer of the party and they’ve been telling us everything is fine and they were raising money with no problems.”

That wasn’t true, he said. Officials from Hillary’s campaign had taken a look at the DNC’s books. Obama left the party $24 million in debt—$15 million in bank debt and more than $8 million owed to vendors after the 2012 campaign and had been paying that off very slowly. Obama’s campaign was not scheduled to pay it off until 2016. Hillary for America (the campaign) and the Hillary Victory Fund (its joint fundraising vehicle with the DNC) had taken care of 80 percent of the remaining debt in 2016, about $10 million, and had placed the party on an allowance.

If I didn’t know about this, I assumed that none of the other officers knew about it, either. That was just Debbie’s way. In my experience she didn’t come to the officers of the DNC for advice and counsel. She seemed to make decisions on her own and let us know at the last minute what she had decided, as she had done when she told us about the hacking only minutes before the Washington Post broke the news.

On the phone Gary told me the DNC had needed a $2 million loan, which the campaign had arranged.

“No! That can’t be true!” I said. “The party cannot take out a loan without the unanimous agreement of all of the officers.”

“Gary, how did they do this without me knowing?” I asked. “I don’t know how Debbie relates to the officers,” Gary said. He described the party as fully under the control of Hillary’s campaign, which seemed to confirm the suspicions of the Bernie camp. The campaign had the DNC on life support, giving it money every month to meet its basic expenses, while the campaign was using the party as a fund-raising clearing house. Under FEC law, an individual can contribute a maximum of $2,700 directly to a presidential campaign. But the limits are much higher for contributions to state parties and a party’s national committee.

Individuals who had maxed out their $2,700 contribution limit to the campaign could write an additional check for $353,400 to the Hillary Victory Fund—that figure represented $10,000 to each of the thirty-two states’ parties who were part of the Victory Fund agreement—$320,000—and $33,400 to the DNC. The money would be deposited in the states first, and transferred to the DNC shortly after that. Money in the battleground states usually stayed in that state, but all the other states funneled that money directly to the DNC, which quickly transferred the money to Brooklyn.

“Wait,” I said. “That victory fund was supposed to be for whoever was the nominee, and the state party races. You’re telling me that Hillary has been controlling it since before she got the nomination?”

Gary said the campaign had to do it or the party would collapse.

“That was the deal that Robby struck with Debbie,” he explained, referring to campaign manager Robby Mook. “It was to sustain the DNC. We sent the party nearly $20 million from September until the convention, and more to prepare for the election.”

“What’s the burn rate, Gary?” I asked. “How much money do we need every month to fund the party?”

The burn rate was $3.5 million to $4 million a month, he said.

I gasped. I had a pretty good sense of the DNC’s operations after having served as interim chair five years earlier. Back then the monthly expenses were half that. What had happened? The party chair usually shrinks the staff between presidential election campaigns, but Debbie had chosen not to do that. She had stuck lots of consultants on the DNC payroll, and Obama’s consultants were being financed by the DNC, too.

When we hung up, I was livid. Not at Gary, but at this mess I had inherited. I knew that Debbie had outsourced a lot of the management of the party and had not been the greatest at fundraising. I would not be that kind of chair, even if I was only an interim chair. Did they think I would just be a surrogate for them, get on the road and rouse up the crowds? I was going to manage this party the best I could and try to make it better, even if Brooklyn did not like this. It would be weeks before I would fully understand the financial shenanigans that were keeping the party on life support.

Right around the time of the convention the leaked emails revealed Hillary’s campaign was grabbing money from the state parties for its own purposes, leaving the states with very little to support down-ballot races. A Politico story published on May 2, 2016, described the big fund-raising vehicle she had launched through the states the summer before, quoting a vow she had made to rebuild “the party from the ground up … when our state parties are strong, we win. That’s what will happen.”

Yet the states kept less than half of 1 percent of the $82 million they had amassed from the extravagant fund-raisers Hillary’s campaign was holding, just as Gary had described to me when he and I talked in August. When the Politico story described this arrangement as “essentially … money laundering” for the Clinton campaign, Hillary’s people were outraged at being accused of doing something shady. Bernie’s people were angry for their own reasons, saying this was part of a calculated strategy to throw the nomination to Hillary.

I wanted to believe Hillary, who made campaign finance reform part of her platform, but I had made this pledge to Bernie and did not want to disappoint him. I kept asking the party lawyers and the DNC staff to show me the agreements that the party had made for sharing the money they raised, but there was a lot of shuffling of feet and looking the other way.

When I got back from a vacation in Martha’s Vineyard I at last found the document that described it all: the Joint Fund-Raising Agreement between the DNC, the Hillary Victory Fund, and Hillary for America.

The agreement—signed by Amy Dacey, the former CEO of the DNC, and Robby Mook with a copy to Marc Elias—specified that in exchange for raising money and investing in the DNC, Hillary would control the party’s finances, strategy, and all the money raised. Her campaign had the right of refusal of who would be the party communications director, and it would make final decisions on all the other staff. The DNC also was required to consult with the campaign about all other staffing, budgeting, data, analytics, and mailings.

I had been wondering why it was that I couldn’t write a press release without passing it by Brooklyn. Well, here was the answer.

When the party chooses the nominee, the custom is that the candidate’s team starts to exercise more control over the party. If the party has an incumbent candidate, as was the case with Clinton in 1996 or Obama in 2012, this kind of arrangement is seamless because the party already is under the control of the president. When you have an open contest without an incumbent and competitive primaries, the party comes under the candidate’s control only after the nominee is certain. When I was manager of Gore’s campaign in 2000, we started inserting our people into the DNC in June. This victory fund agreement, however, had been signed in August 2015, just four months after Hillary announced her candidacy and nearly a year before she officially had the nomination.

I had tried to search out any other evidence of internal corruption that would show that the DNC was rigging the system to throw the primary to Hillary, but I could not find any in party affairs or among the staff. I had gone department by department, investigating individual conduct for evidence of skewed decisions, and I was happy to see that I had found none. Then I found this agreement.

The funding arrangement with HFA and the victory fund agreement was not illegal, but it sure looked unethical. If the fight had been fair, one campaign would not have control of the party before the voters had decided which one they wanted to lead. This was not a criminal act, but as I saw it, it compromised the party’s integrity....

Of course, it appears she conveniently left out the part about how she leaked debate questions to Hillary Clinton before a debate (at least in this excerpt). Maybe she's throwing Hillary and Debbie under the bus to try and cover her own corruption as well.

Personally, I am bored by Mueller's Investigation. Nothing about the election, nothing about The Trump Campaign,.

Doesn't George Papadopoulos ring a bell?

A volunteer?

And an Unpaid of Volunteer nobody even knew existed?

You are shitting me right?

And what did "ELLIOT NESS, G MAN" charge your papa with?

He had a meeting with a professor....in London.... Legal.
He states that the professor said he had dirt on Clinton.....legal....
He disclosed the meeting with the professor.....legal...

Your Papa even documented the date and topics discussed using the proper disclosure forms.

The London Professor stated emphatically that Papadopoulos is LYING, and that he NEVER approached him with dirt on Clinton. They never even had a discussion, NOR did he introduce him to some FEMALE RELATIVE of Putin's. The professor flat out called the accusation a LAUGHING STOCK!

But when the BIG OLE BAD FBI interviewed him, he made a verbal statement about THE DATE he said he met with The Professor.

And because the lil ole unpaid volunteer got the date wrong...a date that was WRITTEN DOWN and documented, THE BIG OLE BAD GMAN falsely charged him with "LYING TO A FEDERAL OFFICIAL"

So who is lying now? The Professor, Papadopoulas, or Herr Mueller? Two of the three already called Papadopoulos a liar.....so you figure it out dummy!

Go Fuck yourself. You have got to be the Reason THE DEVIL INVENTED ABORTIONS.

You are one dumb mother fucker, and need to go punch your mother in the nose for giving birth to you.

The events Mueller is investigating all occurred years before Manafort signed on to help The Trump campaign for two and a half short months.

What is all of this CONvoluted nonsense?

well what you didn't understand was the 145 million was to allow hitlery to control the DNC. I felt that was extremely obvious.

you know, the payment for the mine thingy.

It's not obvious in any way, dope. You have the logic skills of a turnip.

 

[jc456]

So Hillary didn't get $145,000,000?

For what?

For selling 20% of our uranium to Russia duh

Why do you think they gave her $145,000,000...kindness?

Who gave her the money? And how did they benefit from it?

Who gave her the money?
Exactly

And how did they benefit from it?
I just posted it, her take over of the failing DNC.


But you are saying she received 145 million, right? your statement says so. so what did she do with it?

You instead answered a question with your own question rather than answer. a true libturd thingy. I love it. you all never answer questions. funny.

You, at some point have to make statements and stop with the leading questions. What she did with any money doesn't prove that anything wrong was done. In act you haven't stated one wrong thing...you'e just asking questions like "why now?" "What for?" And thinks that means something.

is that like setting up a meeting to discuss a future presidency isn't illegal then right? I make statements all day long, Hitlery used the 145million to run and own the DNC. statement. she knew the DNC was low on cash, she arranged all of this 145 million to one day do what she eventually did.

statement. I have Donna Brazil making that case. ouch.