Judge Jeanine: Uranium One is Biggest Scandals of the Last Century and Is Far from a Distraction

[Faun]

Facts surrounding what is known as Uranium One



From the New York Times:
SOURCE:
Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation Amid Russian Uranium Deal

The headline on the website Pravda trumpeted “Russian Nuclear Energy Conquers the World.”

The article, in January 2013, detailed how the Russian atomic energy agency, Rosatom, had taken over a Canadian company with uranium-mining stakes stretching from Central Asia to the American West. The deal made Rosatom one of the world’s largest uranium producers and brought Mr. Putin closer to his goal of controlling much of the global uranium supply chain.

Beyond mines in Kazakhstan that are among the most lucrative in the world, the sale gave the Russians control of one-fifth of all uranium production capacity in the United States. Since uranium is considered a strategic asset, with implications for national security, the deal had to be approved by a committee composed of representatives from a number of United States government agencies. Among the agencies that eventually signed off was the State Department, then headed by Mr. Clinton’s wife, Hillary Rodham Clinton.

As the Russians gradually assumed control of Uranium One in three separate transactions from 2009 to 2013, Canadian records show, a flow of cash made its way to the Clinton Foundation. Uranium One’s chairman used his family foundation to make four donations totaling $2.35 million. Those contributions were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons, despite an agreement Mrs. Clinton had struck with the Obama White House to publicly identify all donors. Other people with ties to the company made donations as well.

And shortly after the Russians announced their intention to acquire a majority stake in Uranium One, Mr. Clinton received $500,000 for a Moscow speech from a Russian investment bank with links to the Kremlin that was promoting Uranium One stock.

The path to a Russian acquisition of American uranium deposits began in 2005 in Kazakhstan, where the Canadian mining financier Frank Giustra orchestrated his first big uranium deal, with Mr. Clinton at his side.

The two men had flown aboard Mr. Giustra’s private jet to Almaty, Kazakhstan, where they dined with the authoritarian president, Nursultan A. Nazarbayev. Mr. Clinton handed the Kazakh president a propaganda coup when he expressed support for Mr. Nazarbayev’s bid to head an international elections monitoring group, undercutting American foreign policy and criticism of Kazakhstan’s poor human rights record by, among others, his wife, then a senator.

Within days of the visit, Mr. Giustra’s fledgling company, UrAsia Energy Ltd., signed a preliminary deal giving it stakes in three uranium mines controlled by the state-run uranium agency Kazatomprom.

( remember the name Kazatomprom )


When The Times published an article revealing the 2005 trip’s link to Mr. Giustra’s Kazakhstan mining deal. It also reported that several months later, Mr. Giustra had donated $31.3 million to Mr. Clinton’s foundation.

Soon, Uranium One began to snap up companies with assets in the United States. In April 2007, it announced the purchase of a uranium mill in Utah and more than 38,000 acres of uranium exploration properties in four Western states, followed quickly by the acquisition of the Energy Metals Corporation and its uranium holdings in Wyoming, Texas and Utah.

( remember the Uranium One purchase date April 2007 as it comes significnt later in this post )



SOURCE:
Uranium One deal led to some exports to Europe, memos show

One controversy that it showed up in The Washington Post's official fact-checker site this week. "We have noted repeatedly that extracted uranium could not beexported by Russia without a license, which Rosatom does not have," the Post reported on Monday, linking to the 2011 Barrasso letter.

Yet NRC memos reviewed by The Hill show that it did approve the shipment of yellowcake uranium - the raw material used to make nuclear fuel and weapons - from the Russian-owned mines in the United States to Canada in 2012 through a third party. Later, the Obama administration approved some of that uranium going all the way to Europe, government documents show.

Rather than give Rosatom a direct export license - which would have raised red flags inside a Congress already suspicious of the deal - the NRC in 2012 authorized an amendment to an existing export license for a Paducah, Ky.-based trucking firm called RSB Logistics Services Inc. to simply add Uranium One to the list of clients whose uranium it could move to Canada.

The license, reviewed by The Hill, is dated March 16, 2012, and it increased the amount of uranium ore concentrate that RSB Logistics could ship to the Cameco Corp. plant in Ontario from 7,500,000 kilograms to 12,000,000 kilograms and added Uranium One to the "other parties to Export."

The move escaped notice in Congress.

Uranium One's American arm, however, emailed a statement to The Hill on Wednesday evening confirming it did export uranium to Canada through the trucking firm and that 25 percent of that nuclear fuel eventually made its way outside North America to Europe and Asia, stressing all the exports complied with federal law.
"None of the US U308 product produced to date has been sold to non-US customers except for approximately 25% which was sold via book transfer at the conversion facilities to customers from Western Europe and Asia," executive Donna Wickers said. "Any physical export of the product from conversion facilities to non-US destinations is under the control of such customers and subject to NRC regulation."



SOURCE:
Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation Amid Russian Uranium Deal

By June 2009, a little over a year after the star-studded evening in Toronto, Uranium One’s stock was in free-fall, down 40 percent. Mr. Dzhakishev, the head of Kazatomprom (there’s that name again) had just been arrested on charges that he ILLEGALLY SOLD uranium deposits to foreign companies, including at least some of those won by Mr. Giustra’s UrAsia and now owned by Uranium One.

Fox News anchor Shepard Smith debunked what his own network has called the Hillary Clinton uranium “scandal,” infuriating Fox viewers, some of whom suggested that he ought to work for CNN or MSNBC.


Smith’s critique, which called President Trump’s accusations against Clinton “inaccurate,” was triggered by renewed calls from Republicans on Capitol Hill for a special counsel to investigate Clinton.


Fox News, along with Trump and his allies, has been suggesting for months a link between donations to the Clinton Foundation and the approval of a deal by the State Department and the Obama administration allowing a Russian company to purchase a Canada-based mining group with operations in the United States.


Trump called it “Watergate, modern-age.” Former White House adviser Sebastian Gorka, speaking on Fox News last month, said it was “equivalent to” the Julius and Ethel Rosenberg spying case of the 1950s, in which the couple was charged with providing U.S. atomic secrets to the Soviet Union, noting that “those people got the chair.”

But Smith, in his broadcast, made many of the same points as the fact-checkers. “Now, here’s the accusation,” he said.

Nine people involved in the deal made donations to the Clinton Foundation totaling more than $140 million. In exchange, Secretary of State Clinton approved the sale to the Russians, a quid pro quo. The accusation [was] first made by Peter Schweizer, the senior editor-at-large of the website Breitbart in his 2015 book “Clinton Cash.” The next year, candidate Donald Trump cited the accusation as an example of Clinton corruption.

He then played a video of Trump’s version of the “scandal” in which he claimed:

Hillary Clinton’s State Department approved the transfer of 20 percent of America’s uranium holdings to Russia. Well, nine investors in the deal funneled $145 million to the Clinton Foundation.

Smith called the statement “inaccurate in a number of ways,” noting that “the Clinton State Department had no power to veto or approve that transaction.” Rather, it must be approved by an interagency committee of the government consisting of nine department heads, including the secretary of state.


Most of the Clinton Foundation donations in question, he pointed out, came from Frank Giustra, the founder of the uranium company in Canada. But Giustra, Smith noted, “says he sold his stake in the company back in 2007,” three years before the uranium/Russia deal and “a year and a half before Hillary Clinton became secretary of state.” He added:

. . . The accusation is predicated on the charge that Secretary Clinton approved the sale. She did not. A committee of nine evaluated the sale, the president approved the sale, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and others had to offer permits, and none of the uranium was exported for use by the U.S. to Russia.

Smith has deviated from the Fox and Trump line before, to the point that his Fox colleague Sean Hannity accused him of being “anti-Trump.”

I do go to a single source “opinion” piece in trying to debunk allegations that does not utilze any uncovered documentation to Back their view. This is why it’s important to utilize more than one source, that includes documentation and testimony that can be provided, which so happens the New York Times and the Hill articles both independently provided the same questions and similar allegations that need to be investigated.

Having several eyewitness accounts (reporting) utilizing uncovered revealed documents, named sources, NRC accounts will always Trump (no pun intended) one “opinion” piece without provided uncovered documents that can be provided as proof to counter the allegations. That’s what it meant by “doing your research” ... over simply referencing what amounts to just one opinion piece.

And yet, no answer....

For the deal to go through, nine separate departments had to approve it. Where's your evidence any of the other 8 were bribed?

 

[jillian]

Facts surrounding what is known as Uranium One



From the New York Times:
SOURCE:
Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation Amid Russian Uranium Deal

The headline on the website Pravda trumpeted “Russian Nuclear Energy Conquers the World.”

The article, in January 2013, detailed how the Russian atomic energy agency, Rosatom, had taken over a Canadian company with uranium-mining stakes stretching from Central Asia to the American West. The deal made Rosatom one of the world’s largest uranium producers and brought Mr. Putin closer to his goal of controlling much of the global uranium supply chain.

Beyond mines in Kazakhstan that are among the most lucrative in the world, the sale gave the Russians control of one-fifth of all uranium production capacity in the United States. Since uranium is considered a strategic asset, with implications for national security, the deal had to be approved by a committee composed of representatives from a number of United States government agencies. Among the agencies that eventually signed off was the State Department, then headed by Mr. Clinton’s wife, Hillary Rodham Clinton.

As the Russians gradually assumed control of Uranium One in three separate transactions from 2009 to 2013, Canadian records show, a flow of cash made its way to the Clinton Foundation. Uranium One’s chairman used his family foundation to make four donations totaling $2.35 million. Those contributions were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons, despite an agreement Mrs. Clinton had struck with the Obama White House to publicly identify all donors. Other people with ties to the company made donations as well.

And shortly after the Russians announced their intention to acquire a majority stake in Uranium One, Mr. Clinton received $500,000 for a Moscow speech from a Russian investment bank with links to the Kremlin that was promoting Uranium One stock.

The path to a Russian acquisition of American uranium deposits began in 2005 in Kazakhstan, where the Canadian mining financier Frank Giustra orchestrated his first big uranium deal, with Mr. Clinton at his side.

The two men had flown aboard Mr. Giustra’s private jet to Almaty, Kazakhstan, where they dined with the authoritarian president, Nursultan A. Nazarbayev. Mr. Clinton handed the Kazakh president a propaganda coup when he expressed support for Mr. Nazarbayev’s bid to head an international elections monitoring group, undercutting American foreign policy and criticism of Kazakhstan’s poor human rights record by, among others, his wife, then a senator.

Within days of the visit, Mr. Giustra’s fledgling company, UrAsia Energy Ltd., signed a preliminary deal giving it stakes in three uranium mines controlled by the state-run uranium agency Kazatomprom.

( remember the name Kazatomprom )


When The Times published an article revealing the 2005 trip’s link to Mr. Giustra’s Kazakhstan mining deal. It also reported that several months later, Mr. Giustra had donated $31.3 million to Mr. Clinton’s foundation.

Soon, Uranium One began to snap up companies with assets in the United States. In April 2007, it announced the purchase of a uranium mill in Utah and more than 38,000 acres of uranium exploration properties in four Western states, followed quickly by the acquisition of the Energy Metals Corporation and its uranium holdings in Wyoming, Texas and Utah.

( remember the Uranium One purchase date April 2007 as it comes significnt later in this post )



SOURCE:
Uranium One deal led to some exports to Europe, memos show

One controversy that it showed up in The Washington Post's official fact-checker site this week. "We have noted repeatedly that extracted uranium could not beexported by Russia without a license, which Rosatom does not have," the Post reported on Monday, linking to the 2011 Barrasso letter.

Yet NRC memos reviewed by The Hill show that it did approve the shipment of yellowcake uranium - the raw material used to make nuclear fuel and weapons - from the Russian-owned mines in the United States to Canada in 2012 through a third party. Later, the Obama administration approved some of that uranium going all the way to Europe, government documents show.

Rather than give Rosatom a direct export license - which would have raised red flags inside a Congress already suspicious of the deal - the NRC in 2012 authorized an amendment to an existing export license for a Paducah, Ky.-based trucking firm called RSB Logistics Services Inc. to simply add Uranium One to the list of clients whose uranium it could move to Canada.

The license, reviewed by The Hill, is dated March 16, 2012, and it increased the amount of uranium ore concentrate that RSB Logistics could ship to the Cameco Corp. plant in Ontario from 7,500,000 kilograms to 12,000,000 kilograms and added Uranium One to the "other parties to Export."

The move escaped notice in Congress.

Uranium One's American arm, however, emailed a statement to The Hill on Wednesday evening confirming it did export uranium to Canada through the trucking firm and that 25 percent of that nuclear fuel eventually made its way outside North America to Europe and Asia, stressing all the exports complied with federal law.
"None of the US U308 product produced to date has been sold to non-US customers except for approximately 25% which was sold via book transfer at the conversion facilities to customers from Western Europe and Asia," executive Donna Wickers said. "Any physical export of the product from conversion facilities to non-US destinations is under the control of such customers and subject to NRC regulation."



SOURCE:
Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation Amid Russian Uranium Deal

By June 2009, a little over a year after the star-studded evening in Toronto, Uranium One’s stock was in free-fall, down 40 percent. Mr. Dzhakishev, the head of Kazatomprom (there’s that name again) had just been arrested on charges that he ILLEGALLY SOLD uranium deposits to foreign companies, including at least some of those won by Mr. Giustra’s UrAsia and now owned by Uranium One.

Fox News anchor Shepard Smith debunked what his own network has called the Hillary Clinton uranium “scandal,” infuriating Fox viewers, some of whom suggested that he ought to work for CNN or MSNBC.


Smith’s critique, which called President Trump’s accusations against Clinton “inaccurate,” was triggered by renewed calls from Republicans on Capitol Hill for a special counsel to investigate Clinton.


Fox News, along with Trump and his allies, has been suggesting for months a link between donations to the Clinton Foundation and the approval of a deal by the State Department and the Obama administration allowing a Russian company to purchase a Canada-based mining group with operations in the United States.


Trump called it “Watergate, modern-age.” Former White House adviser Sebastian Gorka, speaking on Fox News last month, said it was “equivalent to” the Julius and Ethel Rosenberg spying case of the 1950s, in which the couple was charged with providing U.S. atomic secrets to the Soviet Union, noting that “those people got the chair.”

But Smith, in his broadcast, made many of the same points as the fact-checkers. “Now, here’s the accusation,” he said.

Nine people involved in the deal made donations to the Clinton Foundation totaling more than $140 million. In exchange, Secretary of State Clinton approved the sale to the Russians, a quid pro quo. The accusation [was] first made by Peter Schweizer, the senior editor-at-large of the website Breitbart in his 2015 book “Clinton Cash.” The next year, candidate Donald Trump cited the accusation as an example of Clinton corruption.

He then played a video of Trump’s version of the “scandal” in which he claimed:

Hillary Clinton’s State Department approved the transfer of 20 percent of America’s uranium holdings to Russia. Well, nine investors in the deal funneled $145 million to the Clinton Foundation.

Smith called the statement “inaccurate in a number of ways,” noting that “the Clinton State Department had no power to veto or approve that transaction.” Rather, it must be approved by an interagency committee of the government consisting of nine department heads, including the secretary of state.


Most of the Clinton Foundation donations in question, he pointed out, came from Frank Giustra, the founder of the uranium company in Canada. But Giustra, Smith noted, “says he sold his stake in the company back in 2007,” three years before the uranium/Russia deal and “a year and a half before Hillary Clinton became secretary of state.” He added:

. . . The accusation is predicated on the charge that Secretary Clinton approved the sale. She did not. A committee of nine evaluated the sale, the president approved the sale, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and others had to offer permits, and none of the uranium was exported for use by the U.S. to Russia.

Smith has deviated from the Fox and Trump line before, to the point that his Fox colleague Sean Hannity accused him of being “anti-Trump.”

I do go to a single source “opinion” piece in trying to debunk allegations that does not utilze any uncovered documentation to Back their view. This is why it’s important to utilize more than one source, that includes documentation and testimony that can be provided, which so happens the New York Times and the Hill articles both independently provided the same questions and similar allegations that need to be investigated.

Having several eyewitness accounts (reporting) utilizing uncovered revealed documents, named sources, NRC accounts will always Trump (no pun intended) one “opinion” piece without provided uncovered documents that can be provided as proof to counter the allegations. That’s what it meant by “doing your research” ... over simply referencing what amounts to just one opinion piece.

And yet, no answer....

For the deal to go through, nine separate departments had to approve it. Where's your evidence any of the other 8 were bribed?

he don't need no damn evidence.... his delusions tell him what to believe...

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

Facts surrounding what is known as Uranium One



From the New York Times:
SOURCE:
Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation Amid Russian Uranium Deal

The headline on the website Pravda trumpeted “Russian Nuclear Energy Conquers the World.”

The article, in January 2013, detailed how the Russian atomic energy agency, Rosatom, had taken over a Canadian company with uranium-mining stakes stretching from Central Asia to the American West. The deal made Rosatom one of the world’s largest uranium producers and brought Mr. Putin closer to his goal of controlling much of the global uranium supply chain.

Beyond mines in Kazakhstan that are among the most lucrative in the world, the sale gave the Russians control of one-fifth of all uranium production capacity in the United States. Since uranium is considered a strategic asset, with implications for national security, the deal had to be approved by a committee composed of representatives from a number of United States government agencies. Among the agencies that eventually signed off was the State Department, then headed by Mr. Clinton’s wife, Hillary Rodham Clinton.

As the Russians gradually assumed control of Uranium One in three separate transactions from 2009 to 2013, Canadian records show, a flow of cash made its way to the Clinton Foundation. Uranium One’s chairman used his family foundation to make four donations totaling $2.35 million. Those contributions were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons, despite an agreement Mrs. Clinton had struck with the Obama White House to publicly identify all donors. Other people with ties to the company made donations as well.

And shortly after the Russians announced their intention to acquire a majority stake in Uranium One, Mr. Clinton received $500,000 for a Moscow speech from a Russian investment bank with links to the Kremlin that was promoting Uranium One stock.

The path to a Russian acquisition of American uranium deposits began in 2005 in Kazakhstan, where the Canadian mining financier Frank Giustra orchestrated his first big uranium deal, with Mr. Clinton at his side.

The two men had flown aboard Mr. Giustra’s private jet to Almaty, Kazakhstan, where they dined with the authoritarian president, Nursultan A. Nazarbayev. Mr. Clinton handed the Kazakh president a propaganda coup when he expressed support for Mr. Nazarbayev’s bid to head an international elections monitoring group, undercutting American foreign policy and criticism of Kazakhstan’s poor human rights record by, among others, his wife, then a senator.

Within days of the visit, Mr. Giustra’s fledgling company, UrAsia Energy Ltd., signed a preliminary deal giving it stakes in three uranium mines controlled by the state-run uranium agency Kazatomprom.

( remember the name Kazatomprom )


When The Times published an article revealing the 2005 trip’s link to Mr. Giustra’s Kazakhstan mining deal. It also reported that several months later, Mr. Giustra had donated $31.3 million to Mr. Clinton’s foundation.

Soon, Uranium One began to snap up companies with assets in the United States. In April 2007, it announced the purchase of a uranium mill in Utah and more than 38,000 acres of uranium exploration properties in four Western states, followed quickly by the acquisition of the Energy Metals Corporation and its uranium holdings in Wyoming, Texas and Utah.

( remember the Uranium One purchase date April 2007 as it comes significnt later in this post )



SOURCE:
Uranium One deal led to some exports to Europe, memos show

One controversy that it showed up in The Washington Post's official fact-checker site this week. "We have noted repeatedly that extracted uranium could not beexported by Russia without a license, which Rosatom does not have," the Post reported on Monday, linking to the 2011 Barrasso letter.

Yet NRC memos reviewed by The Hill show that it did approve the shipment of yellowcake uranium - the raw material used to make nuclear fuel and weapons - from the Russian-owned mines in the United States to Canada in 2012 through a third party. Later, the Obama administration approved some of that uranium going all the way to Europe, government documents show.

Rather than give Rosatom a direct export license - which would have raised red flags inside a Congress already suspicious of the deal - the NRC in 2012 authorized an amendment to an existing export license for a Paducah, Ky.-based trucking firm called RSB Logistics Services Inc. to simply add Uranium One to the list of clients whose uranium it could move to Canada.

The license, reviewed by The Hill, is dated March 16, 2012, and it increased the amount of uranium ore concentrate that RSB Logistics could ship to the Cameco Corp. plant in Ontario from 7,500,000 kilograms to 12,000,000 kilograms and added Uranium One to the "other parties to Export."

The move escaped notice in Congress.

Uranium One's American arm, however, emailed a statement to The Hill on Wednesday evening confirming it did export uranium to Canada through the trucking firm and that 25 percent of that nuclear fuel eventually made its way outside North America to Europe and Asia, stressing all the exports complied with federal law.
"None of the US U308 product produced to date has been sold to non-US customers except for approximately 25% which was sold via book transfer at the conversion facilities to customers from Western Europe and Asia," executive Donna Wickers said. "Any physical export of the product from conversion facilities to non-US destinations is under the control of such customers and subject to NRC regulation."



SOURCE:
Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation Amid Russian Uranium Deal

By June 2009, a little over a year after the star-studded evening in Toronto, Uranium One’s stock was in free-fall, down 40 percent. Mr. Dzhakishev, the head of Kazatomprom (there’s that name again) had just been arrested on charges that he ILLEGALLY SOLD uranium deposits to foreign companies, including at least some of those won by Mr. Giustra’s UrAsia and now owned by Uranium One.

Fox News anchor Shepard Smith debunked what his own network has called the Hillary Clinton uranium “scandal,” infuriating Fox viewers, some of whom suggested that he ought to work for CNN or MSNBC.


Smith’s critique, which called President Trump’s accusations against Clinton “inaccurate,” was triggered by renewed calls from Republicans on Capitol Hill for a special counsel to investigate Clinton.


Fox News, along with Trump and his allies, has been suggesting for months a link between donations to the Clinton Foundation and the approval of a deal by the State Department and the Obama administration allowing a Russian company to purchase a Canada-based mining group with operations in the United States.


Trump called it “Watergate, modern-age.” Former White House adviser Sebastian Gorka, speaking on Fox News last month, said it was “equivalent to” the Julius and Ethel Rosenberg spying case of the 1950s, in which the couple was charged with providing U.S. atomic secrets to the Soviet Union, noting that “those people got the chair.”

But Smith, in his broadcast, made many of the same points as the fact-checkers. “Now, here’s the accusation,” he said.

Nine people involved in the deal made donations to the Clinton Foundation totaling more than $140 million. In exchange, Secretary of State Clinton approved the sale to the Russians, a quid pro quo. The accusation [was] first made by Peter Schweizer, the senior editor-at-large of the website Breitbart in his 2015 book “Clinton Cash.” The next year, candidate Donald Trump cited the accusation as an example of Clinton corruption.

He then played a video of Trump’s version of the “scandal” in which he claimed:

Hillary Clinton’s State Department approved the transfer of 20 percent of America’s uranium holdings to Russia. Well, nine investors in the deal funneled $145 million to the Clinton Foundation.

Smith called the statement “inaccurate in a number of ways,” noting that “the Clinton State Department had no power to veto or approve that transaction.” Rather, it must be approved by an interagency committee of the government consisting of nine department heads, including the secretary of state.


Most of the Clinton Foundation donations in question, he pointed out, came from Frank Giustra, the founder of the uranium company in Canada. But Giustra, Smith noted, “says he sold his stake in the company back in 2007,” three years before the uranium/Russia deal and “a year and a half before Hillary Clinton became secretary of state.” He added:

. . . The accusation is predicated on the charge that Secretary Clinton approved the sale. She did not. A committee of nine evaluated the sale, the president approved the sale, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and others had to offer permits, and none of the uranium was exported for use by the U.S. to Russia.

Smith has deviated from the Fox and Trump line before, to the point that his Fox colleague Sean Hannity accused him of being “anti-Trump.”

I do go to a single source “opinion” piece in trying to debunk allegations that does not utilze any uncovered documentation to Back their view. This is why it’s important to utilize more than one source, that includes documentation and testimony that can be provided, which so happens the New York Times and the Hill articles both independently provided the same questions and similar allegations that need to be investigated.

Having several eyewitness accounts (reporting) utilizing uncovered revealed documents, named sources, NRC accounts will always Trump (no pun intended) one “opinion” piece without provided uncovered documents that can be provided as proof to counter the allegations. That’s what it meant by “doing your research” ... over simply referencing what amounts to just one opinion piece.

And yet, no answer....

For the deal to go through, nine separate departments had to approve it. Where's your evidence any of the other 8 were bribed?

he don't need no damn evidence.... his delusions tell him what to believe...

The New York Times and The Hill each provided their accounts of payments to the Clinton Foundation who was Secretary of State, add a private tarmac meeting with Loretta Lynch, Bill Cinton’s Private jet meeting with those tied to Uranium One, a gag order on an undercover FBI informant involved with knowledge o the Uranium One deal, and that he was forced to remain silent contrary to what his information could provide through a Democrat administration where Hillary stood as one of Obama’s personal department heads.

Now compare that with what Jillian believes regarding Trump collusion. A hacked computer never leaving the posesssion of the DNC and turned over to FBI investigators, CNN reports with no named sources and no documents provided, two congressional hearings, a special council who could freely pursue CNNs sources to confirm legitimacy, and what can that special prosecutor Mullier produce .... a tax evasion allegation indictment between 1999 - 2014 that makes no mention of Trump and his collusion to Russia.

In the game of poker, I’d call your bluff Jillian. Prove me wrong with documented provided named sources.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

I expected as much of a response from you Jullian, growing awfully quiet all of a sudden - good

 

[Syriusly]

Facts surrounding what is known as Uranium One



From the New York Times:
SOURCE:
Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation Amid Russian Uranium Deal

The headline on the website Pravda trumpeted “Russian Nuclear Energy Conquers the World.”

The article, in January 2013, detailed how the Russian atomic energy agency, Rosatom, had taken over a Canadian company with uranium-mining stakes stretching from Central Asia to the American West. The deal made Rosatom one of the world’s largest uranium producers and brought Mr. Putin closer to his goal of controlling much of the global uranium supply chain.

Beyond mines in Kazakhstan that are among the most lucrative in the world, the sale gave the Russians control of one-fifth of all uranium production capacity in the United States. Since uranium is considered a strategic asset, with implications for national security, the deal had to be approved by a committee composed of representatives from a number of United States government agencies. Among the agencies that eventually signed off was the State Department, then headed by Mr. Clinton’s wife, Hillary Rodham Clinton.

As the Russians gradually assumed control of Uranium One in three separate transactions from 2009 to 2013, Canadian records show, a flow of cash made its way to the Clinton Foundation. Uranium One’s chairman used his family foundation to make four donations totaling $2.35 million. Those contributions were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons, despite an agreement Mrs. Clinton had struck with the Obama White House to publicly identify all donors. Other people with ties to the company made donations as well.

And shortly after the Russians announced their intention to acquire a majority stake in Uranium One, Mr. Clinton received $500,000 for a Moscow speech from a Russian investment bank with links to the Kremlin that was promoting Uranium One stock.

The path to a Russian acquisition of American uranium deposits began in 2005 in Kazakhstan, where the Canadian mining financier Frank Giustra orchestrated his first big uranium deal, with Mr. Clinton at his side.

The two men had flown aboard Mr. Giustra’s private jet to Almaty, Kazakhstan, where they dined with the authoritarian president, Nursultan A. Nazarbayev. Mr. Clinton handed the Kazakh president a propaganda coup when he expressed support for Mr. Nazarbayev’s bid to head an international elections monitoring group, undercutting American foreign policy and criticism of Kazakhstan’s poor human rights record by, among others, his wife, then a senator.

Within days of the visit, Mr. Giustra’s fledgling company, UrAsia Energy Ltd., signed a preliminary deal giving it stakes in three uranium mines controlled by the state-run uranium agency Kazatomprom.

( remember the name Kazatomprom )


When The Times published an article revealing the 2005 trip’s link to Mr. Giustra’s Kazakhstan mining deal. It also reported that several months later, Mr. Giustra had donated $31.3 million to Mr. Clinton’s foundation.

Soon, Uranium One began to snap up companies with assets in the United States. In April 2007, it announced the purchase of a uranium mill in Utah and more than 38,000 acres of uranium exploration properties in four Western states, followed quickly by the acquisition of the Energy Metals Corporation and its uranium holdings in Wyoming, Texas and Utah.

( remember the Uranium One purchase date April 2007 as it comes significnt later in this post )



SOURCE:
Uranium One deal led to some exports to Europe, memos show

One controversy that it showed up in The Washington Post's official fact-checker site this week. "We have noted repeatedly that extracted uranium could not beexported by Russia without a license, which Rosatom does not have," the Post reported on Monday, linking to the 2011 Barrasso letter.

Yet NRC memos reviewed by The Hill show that it did approve the shipment of yellowcake uranium - the raw material used to make nuclear fuel and weapons - from the Russian-owned mines in the United States to Canada in 2012 through a third party. Later, the Obama administration approved some of that uranium going all the way to Europe, government documents show.

Rather than give Rosatom a direct export license - which would have raised red flags inside a Congress already suspicious of the deal - the NRC in 2012 authorized an amendment to an existing export license for a Paducah, Ky.-based trucking firm called RSB Logistics Services Inc. to simply add Uranium One to the list of clients whose uranium it could move to Canada.

The license, reviewed by The Hill, is dated March 16, 2012, and it increased the amount of uranium ore concentrate that RSB Logistics could ship to the Cameco Corp. plant in Ontario from 7,500,000 kilograms to 12,000,000 kilograms and added Uranium One to the "other parties to Export."

The move escaped notice in Congress.

Uranium One's American arm, however, emailed a statement to The Hill on Wednesday evening confirming it did export uranium to Canada through the trucking firm and that 25 percent of that nuclear fuel eventually made its way outside North America to Europe and Asia, stressing all the exports complied with federal law.
"None of the US U308 product produced to date has been sold to non-US customers except for approximately 25% which was sold via book transfer at the conversion facilities to customers from Western Europe and Asia," executive Donna Wickers said. "Any physical export of the product from conversion facilities to non-US destinations is under the control of such customers and subject to NRC regulation."



SOURCE:
Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation Amid Russian Uranium Deal

By June 2009, a little over a year after the star-studded evening in Toronto, Uranium One’s stock was in free-fall, down 40 percent. Mr. Dzhakishev, the head of Kazatomprom (there’s that name again) had just been arrested on charges that he ILLEGALLY SOLD uranium deposits to foreign companies, including at least some of those won by Mr. Giustra’s UrAsia and now owned by Uranium One.

Fox News anchor Shepard Smith debunked what his own network has called the Hillary Clinton uranium “scandal,” infuriating Fox viewers, some of whom suggested that he ought to work for CNN or MSNBC.


Smith’s critique, which called President Trump’s accusations against Clinton “inaccurate,” was triggered by renewed calls from Republicans on Capitol Hill for a special counsel to investigate Clinton.


Fox News, along with Trump and his allies, has been suggesting for months a link between donations to the Clinton Foundation and the approval of a deal by the State Department and the Obama administration allowing a Russian company to purchase a Canada-based mining group with operations in the United States.


Trump called it “Watergate, modern-age.” Former White House adviser Sebastian Gorka, speaking on Fox News last month, said it was “equivalent to” the Julius and Ethel Rosenberg spying case of the 1950s, in which the couple was charged with providing U.S. atomic secrets to the Soviet Union, noting that “those people got the chair.”

But Smith, in his broadcast, made many of the same points as the fact-checkers. “Now, here’s the accusation,” he said.

Nine people involved in the deal made donations to the Clinton Foundation totaling more than $140 million. In exchange, Secretary of State Clinton approved the sale to the Russians, a quid pro quo. The accusation [was] first made by Peter Schweizer, the senior editor-at-large of the website Breitbart in his 2015 book “Clinton Cash.” The next year, candidate Donald Trump cited the accusation as an example of Clinton corruption.

He then played a video of Trump’s version of the “scandal” in which he claimed:

Hillary Clinton’s State Department approved the transfer of 20 percent of America’s uranium holdings to Russia. Well, nine investors in the deal funneled $145 million to the Clinton Foundation.

Smith called the statement “inaccurate in a number of ways,” noting that “the Clinton State Department had no power to veto or approve that transaction.” Rather, it must be approved by an interagency committee of the government consisting of nine department heads, including the secretary of state.


Most of the Clinton Foundation donations in question, he pointed out, came from Frank Giustra, the founder of the uranium company in Canada. But Giustra, Smith noted, “says he sold his stake in the company back in 2007,” three years before the uranium/Russia deal and “a year and a half before Hillary Clinton became secretary of state.” He added:

. . . The accusation is predicated on the charge that Secretary Clinton approved the sale. She did not. A committee of nine evaluated the sale, the president approved the sale, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and others had to offer permits, and none of the uranium was exported for use by the U.S. to Russia.

Smith has deviated from the Fox and Trump line before, to the point that his Fox colleague Sean Hannity accused him of being “anti-Trump.”

I do go to a single source “opinion” piece in trying to debunk allegations that does not utilze any uncovered documentation to Back their view. This is why it’s important to utilize more than one source, that includes documentation and testimony that can be provided, which so happens the New York Times and the Hill articles both independently provided the same questions and similar allegations that need to be investigated.

Having several eyewitness accounts (reporting) utilizing uncovered revealed documents, named sources, NRC accounts will always Trump (no pun intended) one “opinion” piece without provided uncovered documents that can be provided as proof to counter the allegations. That’s what it meant by “doing your research” ... over simply referencing what amounts to just one opinion piece.

And yet, no answer....

For the deal to go through, nine separate departments had to approve it. Where's your evidence any of the other 8 were bribed?

he don't need no damn evidence.... his delusions tell him what to believe...

The New York Times and The Hill each provided their accounts of payments to the Clinton Foundation who was Secretary of State, add a private tarmac meeting with Loretta Lynch, Bill Cinton’s Private jet meeting with those tied to Uranium One, a gag order on an undercover FBI informant involved with knowledge o the Uranium One deal, and that he was forced to remain silent contrary to what his information could provide through a Democrat administration where Hillary stood as one of Obama’s personal department heads..

Yes- there were payments to the Clinton Foundation- and? Were any illegal? No. Did that money go to the Clinton's themselves? No.
Yes- Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State- and? The State Department was one of 9 departments in a committee which approved the deal- and there is no evidence that Hillary Clinton was involved with State's recomendation at all. And then the Nuclear Regulatory Commission had to approve it- and President Obama had to sign off on the deal. Neither Hillary or the State Department had the ability or responsibility to make this deal happen.
Yes- Bill Clinton met with Loretta Lynch on the tarmac- which was terrible optics- but there is absolutely nothing to indicate that this has anything to do with Uranium One- nor would it make any sense- since neither Bill Clinton or Loretta Lynch had anything to do with Uranium One.

And the gag order was lifted on the FBI informant a month ago- why hasn't the GOP Congress interviewed him yet? Almost like Grassley just wanted the publicity

 

[Syriusly]

Facts surrounding what is known as Uranium One



From the New York Times:
SOURCE:
Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation Amid Russian Uranium Deal

The headline on the website Pravda trumpeted “Russian Nuclear Energy Conquers the World.”

The article, in January 2013, detailed how the Russian atomic energy agency, Rosatom, had taken over a Canadian company with uranium-mining stakes stretching from Central Asia to the American West. The deal made Rosatom one of the world’s largest uranium producers and brought Mr. Putin closer to his goal of controlling much of the global uranium supply chain.

Beyond mines in Kazakhstan that are among the most lucrative in the world, the sale gave the Russians control of one-fifth of all uranium production capacity in the United States. Since uranium is considered a strategic asset, with implications for national security, the deal had to be approved by a committee composed of representatives from a number of United States government agencies. Among the agencies that eventually signed off was the State Department, then headed by Mr. Clinton’s wife, Hillary Rodham Clinton.

As the Russians gradually assumed control of Uranium One in three separate transactions from 2009 to 2013, Canadian records show, a flow of cash made its way to the Clinton Foundation. Uranium One’s chairman used his family foundation to make four donations totaling $2.35 million. Those contributions were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons, despite an agreement Mrs. Clinton had struck with the Obama White House to publicly identify all donors. Other people with ties to the company made donations as well.

And shortly after the Russians announced their intention to acquire a majority stake in Uranium One, Mr. Clinton received $500,000 for a Moscow speech from a Russian investment bank with links to the Kremlin that was promoting Uranium One stock.

The path to a Russian acquisition of American uranium deposits began in 2005 in Kazakhstan, where the Canadian mining financier Frank Giustra orchestrated his first big uranium deal, with Mr. Clinton at his side.

The two men had flown aboard Mr. Giustra’s private jet to Almaty, Kazakhstan, where they dined with the authoritarian president, Nursultan A. Nazarbayev. Mr. Clinton handed the Kazakh president a propaganda coup when he expressed support for Mr. Nazarbayev’s bid to head an international elections monitoring group, undercutting American foreign policy and criticism of Kazakhstan’s poor human rights record by, among others, his wife, then a senator.

Within days of the visit, Mr. Giustra’s fledgling company, UrAsia Energy Ltd., signed a preliminary deal giving it stakes in three uranium mines controlled by the state-run uranium agency Kazatomprom.

( remember the name Kazatomprom )


When The Times published an article revealing the 2005 trip’s link to Mr. Giustra’s Kazakhstan mining deal. It also reported that several months later, Mr. Giustra had donated $31.3 million to Mr. Clinton’s foundation.

Soon, Uranium One began to snap up companies with assets in the United States. In April 2007, it announced the purchase of a uranium mill in Utah and more than 38,000 acres of uranium exploration properties in four Western states, followed quickly by the acquisition of the Energy Metals Corporation and its uranium holdings in Wyoming, Texas and Utah.

( remember the Uranium One purchase date April 2007 as it comes significnt later in this post )



SOURCE:
Uranium One deal led to some exports to Europe, memos show

One controversy that it showed up in The Washington Post's official fact-checker site this week. "We have noted repeatedly that extracted uranium could not beexported by Russia without a license, which Rosatom does not have," the Post reported on Monday, linking to the 2011 Barrasso letter.

Yet NRC memos reviewed by The Hill show that it did approve the shipment of yellowcake uranium - the raw material used to make nuclear fuel and weapons - from the Russian-owned mines in the United States to Canada in 2012 through a third party. Later, the Obama administration approved some of that uranium going all the way to Europe, government documents show.

Rather than give Rosatom a direct export license - which would have raised red flags inside a Congress already suspicious of the deal - the NRC in 2012 authorized an amendment to an existing export license for a Paducah, Ky.-based trucking firm called RSB Logistics Services Inc. to simply add Uranium One to the list of clients whose uranium it could move to Canada.

The license, reviewed by The Hill, is dated March 16, 2012, and it increased the amount of uranium ore concentrate that RSB Logistics could ship to the Cameco Corp. plant in Ontario from 7,500,000 kilograms to 12,000,000 kilograms and added Uranium One to the "other parties to Export."

The move escaped notice in Congress.

Uranium One's American arm, however, emailed a statement to The Hill on Wednesday evening confirming it did export uranium to Canada through the trucking firm and that 25 percent of that nuclear fuel eventually made its way outside North America to Europe and Asia, stressing all the exports complied with federal law.
"None of the US U308 product produced to date has been sold to non-US customers except for approximately 25% which was sold via book transfer at the conversion facilities to customers from Western Europe and Asia," executive Donna Wickers said. "Any physical export of the product from conversion facilities to non-US destinations is under the control of such customers and subject to NRC regulation."



SOURCE:
Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation Amid Russian Uranium Deal

By June 2009, a little over a year after the star-studded evening in Toronto, Uranium One’s stock was in free-fall, down 40 percent. Mr. Dzhakishev, the head of Kazatomprom (there’s that name again) had just been arrested on charges that he ILLEGALLY SOLD uranium deposits to foreign companies, including at least some of those won by Mr. Giustra’s UrAsia and now owned by Uranium One.

Fox News anchor Shepard Smith debunked what his own network has called the Hillary Clinton uranium “scandal,” infuriating Fox viewers, some of whom suggested that he ought to work for CNN or MSNBC.


Smith’s critique, which called President Trump’s accusations against Clinton “inaccurate,” was triggered by renewed calls from Republicans on Capitol Hill for a special counsel to investigate Clinton.


Fox News, along with Trump and his allies, has been suggesting for months a link between donations to the Clinton Foundation and the approval of a deal by the State Department and the Obama administration allowing a Russian company to purchase a Canada-based mining group with operations in the United States.


Trump called it “Watergate, modern-age.” Former White House adviser Sebastian Gorka, speaking on Fox News last month, said it was “equivalent to” the Julius and Ethel Rosenberg spying case of the 1950s, in which the couple was charged with providing U.S. atomic secrets to the Soviet Union, noting that “those people got the chair.”

But Smith, in his broadcast, made many of the same points as the fact-checkers. “Now, here’s the accusation,” he said.

Nine people involved in the deal made donations to the Clinton Foundation totaling more than $140 million. In exchange, Secretary of State Clinton approved the sale to the Russians, a quid pro quo. The accusation [was] first made by Peter Schweizer, the senior editor-at-large of the website Breitbart in his 2015 book “Clinton Cash.” The next year, candidate Donald Trump cited the accusation as an example of Clinton corruption.

He then played a video of Trump’s version of the “scandal” in which he claimed:

Hillary Clinton’s State Department approved the transfer of 20 percent of America’s uranium holdings to Russia. Well, nine investors in the deal funneled $145 million to the Clinton Foundation.

Smith called the statement “inaccurate in a number of ways,” noting that “the Clinton State Department had no power to veto or approve that transaction.” Rather, it must be approved by an interagency committee of the government consisting of nine department heads, including the secretary of state.


Most of the Clinton Foundation donations in question, he pointed out, came from Frank Giustra, the founder of the uranium company in Canada. But Giustra, Smith noted, “says he sold his stake in the company back in 2007,” three years before the uranium/Russia deal and “a year and a half before Hillary Clinton became secretary of state.” He added:

. . . The accusation is predicated on the charge that Secretary Clinton approved the sale. She did not. A committee of nine evaluated the sale, the president approved the sale, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and others had to offer permits, and none of the uranium was exported for use by the U.S. to Russia.

Smith has deviated from the Fox and Trump line before, to the point that his Fox colleague Sean Hannity accused him of being “anti-Trump.”

I do go to a single source “opinion” piece in trying to debunk allegations that does not utilze any uncovered documentation to Back their view. This is why it’s important to utilize more than one source, that includes documentation and testimony that can be provided, which so happens the New York Times and the Hill articles both independently provided the same questions and similar allegations that need to be investigated.

Having several eyewitness accounts (reporting) utilizing uncovered revealed documents, named sources, NRC accounts will always Trump (no pun intended) one “opinion” piece without provided uncovered documents that can be provided as proof to counter the allegations. That’s what it meant by “doing your research” ... over simply referencing what amounts to just one opinion piece.

And yet, no answer....

For the deal to go through, nine separate departments had to approve it. Where's your evidence any of the other 8 were bribed?

8 other departments as part of the committee- then the Nuclear Regulatory Commission- and the President had to actually approve the deal.

Which hasn't harmed the United States in any way.

 

[Syriusly]

Facts surrounding what is known as Uranium One



From the New York Times:
SOURCE:
Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation Amid Russian Uranium Deal

The headline on the website Pravda trumpeted “Russian Nuclear Energy Conquers the World.”

The article, in January 2013, detailed how the Russian atomic energy agency, Rosatom, had taken over a Canadian company with uranium-mining stakes stretching from Central Asia to the American West. The deal made Rosatom one of the world’s largest uranium producers and brought Mr. Putin closer to his goal of controlling much of the global uranium supply chain.

Beyond mines in Kazakhstan that are among the most lucrative in the world, the sale gave the Russians control of one-fifth of all uranium production capacity in the United States. Since uranium is considered a strategic asset, with implications for national security, the deal had to be approved by a committee composed of representatives from a number of United States government agencies. Among the agencies that eventually signed off was the State Department, then headed by Mr. Clinton’s wife, Hillary Rodham Clinton.

As the Russians gradually assumed control of Uranium One in three separate transactions from 2009 to 2013, Canadian records show, a flow of cash made its way to the Clinton Foundation. Uranium One’s chairman used his family foundation to make four donations totaling $2.35 million. Those contributions were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons, despite an agreement Mrs. Clinton had struck with the Obama White House to publicly identify all donors. Other people with ties to the company made donations as well.

And shortly after the Russians announced their intention to acquire a majority stake in Uranium One, Mr. Clinton received $500,000 for a Moscow speech from a Russian investment bank with links to the Kremlin that was promoting Uranium One stock.

The path to a Russian acquisition of American uranium deposits began in 2005 in Kazakhstan, where the Canadian mining financier Frank Giustra orchestrated his first big uranium deal, with Mr. Clinton at his side.

The two men had flown aboard Mr. Giustra’s private jet to Almaty, Kazakhstan, where they dined with the authoritarian president, Nursultan A. Nazarbayev. Mr. Clinton handed the Kazakh president a propaganda coup when he expressed support for Mr. Nazarbayev’s bid to head an international elections monitoring group, undercutting American foreign policy and criticism of Kazakhstan’s poor human rights record by, among others, his wife, then a senator.

Within days of the visit, Mr. Giustra’s fledgling company, UrAsia Energy Ltd., signed a preliminary deal giving it stakes in three uranium mines controlled by the state-run uranium agency Kazatomprom.

( remember the name Kazatomprom )


When The Times published an article revealing the 2005 trip’s link to Mr. Giustra’s Kazakhstan mining deal. It also reported that several months later, Mr. Giustra had donated $31.3 million to Mr. Clinton’s foundation.

Soon, Uranium One began to snap up companies with assets in the United States. In April 2007, it announced the purchase of a uranium mill in Utah and more than 38,000 acres of uranium exploration properties in four Western states, followed quickly by the acquisition of the Energy Metals Corporation and its uranium holdings in Wyoming, Texas and Utah.

( remember the Uranium One purchase date April 2007 as it comes significnt later in this post )



SOURCE:
Uranium One deal led to some exports to Europe, memos show

One controversy that it showed up in The Washington Post's official fact-checker site this week. "We have noted repeatedly that extracted uranium could not beexported by Russia without a license, which Rosatom does not have," the Post reported on Monday, linking to the 2011 Barrasso letter.

Yet NRC memos reviewed by The Hill show that it did approve the shipment of yellowcake uranium - the raw material used to make nuclear fuel and weapons - from the Russian-owned mines in the United States to Canada in 2012 through a third party. Later, the Obama administration approved some of that uranium going all the way to Europe, government documents show.

Rather than give Rosatom a direct export license - which would have raised red flags inside a Congress already suspicious of the deal - the NRC in 2012 authorized an amendment to an existing export license for a Paducah, Ky.-based trucking firm called RSB Logistics Services Inc. to simply add Uranium One to the list of clients whose uranium it could move to Canada.

The license, reviewed by The Hill, is dated March 16, 2012, and it increased the amount of uranium ore concentrate that RSB Logistics could ship to the Cameco Corp. plant in Ontario from 7,500,000 kilograms to 12,000,000 kilograms and added Uranium One to the "other parties to Export."

The move escaped notice in Congress.

Uranium One's American arm, however, emailed a statement to The Hill on Wednesday evening confirming it did export uranium to Canada through the trucking firm and that 25 percent of that nuclear fuel eventually made its way outside North America to Europe and Asia, stressing all the exports complied with federal law.
"None of the US U308 product produced to date has been sold to non-US customers except for approximately 25% which was sold via book transfer at the conversion facilities to customers from Western Europe and Asia," executive Donna Wickers said. "Any physical export of the product from conversion facilities to non-US destinations is under the control of such customers and subject to NRC regulation."



SOURCE:
Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation Amid Russian Uranium Deal

By June 2009, a little over a year after the star-studded evening in Toronto, Uranium One’s stock was in free-fall, down 40 percent. Mr. Dzhakishev, the head of Kazatomprom (there’s that name again) had just been arrested on charges that he ILLEGALLY SOLD uranium deposits to foreign companies, including at least some of those won by Mr. Giustra’s UrAsia and now owned by Uranium One.

Fox News anchor Shepard Smith debunked what his own network has called the Hillary Clinton uranium “scandal,” infuriating Fox viewers, some of whom suggested that he ought to work for CNN or MSNBC.


Smith’s critique, which called President Trump’s accusations against Clinton “inaccurate,” was triggered by renewed calls from Republicans on Capitol Hill for a special counsel to investigate Clinton.


Fox News, along with Trump and his allies, has been suggesting for months a link between donations to the Clinton Foundation and the approval of a deal by the State Department and the Obama administration allowing a Russian company to purchase a Canada-based mining group with operations in the United States.


Trump called it “Watergate, modern-age.” Former White House adviser Sebastian Gorka, speaking on Fox News last month, said it was “equivalent to” the Julius and Ethel Rosenberg spying case of the 1950s, in which the couple was charged with providing U.S. atomic secrets to the Soviet Union, noting that “those people got the chair.”

But Smith, in his broadcast, made many of the same points as the fact-checkers. “Now, here’s the accusation,” he said.

Nine people involved in the deal made donations to the Clinton Foundation totaling more than $140 million. In exchange, Secretary of State Clinton approved the sale to the Russians, a quid pro quo. The accusation [was] first made by Peter Schweizer, the senior editor-at-large of the website Breitbart in his 2015 book “Clinton Cash.” The next year, candidate Donald Trump cited the accusation as an example of Clinton corruption.

He then played a video of Trump’s version of the “scandal” in which he claimed:

Hillary Clinton’s State Department approved the transfer of 20 percent of America’s uranium holdings to Russia. Well, nine investors in the deal funneled $145 million to the Clinton Foundation.

Smith called the statement “inaccurate in a number of ways,” noting that “the Clinton State Department had no power to veto or approve that transaction.” Rather, it must be approved by an interagency committee of the government consisting of nine department heads, including the secretary of state.


Most of the Clinton Foundation donations in question, he pointed out, came from Frank Giustra, the founder of the uranium company in Canada. But Giustra, Smith noted, “says he sold his stake in the company back in 2007,” three years before the uranium/Russia deal and “a year and a half before Hillary Clinton became secretary of state.” He added:

. . . The accusation is predicated on the charge that Secretary Clinton approved the sale. She did not. A committee of nine evaluated the sale, the president approved the sale, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and others had to offer permits, and none of the uranium was exported for use by the U.S. to Russia.

Smith has deviated from the Fox and Trump line before, to the point that his Fox colleague Sean Hannity accused him of being “anti-Trump.”

I do go to a single source “opinion” piece in trying to debunk allegations that does not utilze any uncovered documentation to Back their view. This is why it’s important to utilize more than one source, that includes documentation and testimony that can be provided, which so happens the New York Times and the Hill articles both independently provided the same questions and similar allegations that need to be investigated.

Having several eyewitness accounts (reporting) utilizing uncovered revealed documents, named sources, NRC accounts will always Trump (no pun intended) one “opinion” piece without provided uncovered documents that can be provided as proof to counter the allegations. That’s what it meant by “doing your research” ... over simply referencing what amounts to just one opinion piece.

Feel free to refute a single assertion made in the article I cited- which of course came from Fox News.

Better yet- explain how you think that this manufactured scandal could have possibly happened?

Give us your best shot at explaining how payments made by a man who no longer owned a stake in the company- to a Foundation that did not personally benefit Hillary Clinton- managed to bribe all 9 departments that were part of the committee, along with the President and the Nuclear Regulatory Agency?

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

Fox News anchor Shepard Smith debunked what his own network has called the Hillary Clinton uranium “scandal,” infuriating Fox viewers, some of whom suggested that he ought to work for CNN or MSNBC.


Smith’s critique, which called President Trump’s accusations against Clinton “inaccurate,” was triggered by renewed calls from Republicans on Capitol Hill for a special counsel to investigate Clinton.


Fox News, along with Trump and his allies, has been suggesting for months a link between donations to the Clinton Foundation and the approval of a deal by the State Department and the Obama administration allowing a Russian company to purchase a Canada-based mining group with operations in the United States.


Trump called it “Watergate, modern-age.” Former White House adviser Sebastian Gorka, speaking on Fox News last month, said it was “equivalent to” the Julius and Ethel Rosenberg spying case of the 1950s, in which the couple was charged with providing U.S. atomic secrets to the Soviet Union, noting that “those people got the chair.”

But Smith, in his broadcast, made many of the same points as the fact-checkers. “Now, here’s the accusation,” he said.

Nine people involved in the deal made donations to the Clinton Foundation totaling more than $140 million. In exchange, Secretary of State Clinton approved the sale to the Russians, a quid pro quo. The accusation [was] first made by Peter Schweizer, the senior editor-at-large of the website Breitbart in his 2015 book “Clinton Cash.” The next year, candidate Donald Trump cited the accusation as an example of Clinton corruption.

He then played a video of Trump’s version of the “scandal” in which he claimed:

Hillary Clinton’s State Department approved the transfer of 20 percent of America’s uranium holdings to Russia. Well, nine investors in the deal funneled $145 million to the Clinton Foundation.

Smith called the statement “inaccurate in a number of ways,” noting that “the Clinton State Department had no power to veto or approve that transaction.” Rather, it must be approved by an interagency committee of the government consisting of nine department heads, including the secretary of state.


Most of the Clinton Foundation donations in question, he pointed out, came from Frank Giustra, the founder of the uranium company in Canada. But Giustra, Smith noted, “says he sold his stake in the company back in 2007,” three years before the uranium/Russia deal and “a year and a half before Hillary Clinton became secretary of state.” He added:

. . . The accusation is predicated on the charge that Secretary Clinton approved the sale. She did not. A committee of nine evaluated the sale, the president approved the sale, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and others had to offer permits, and none of the uranium was exported for use by the U.S. to Russia.

Smith has deviated from the Fox and Trump line before, to the point that his Fox colleague Sean Hannity accused him of being “anti-Trump.”

I do go to a single source “opinion” piece in trying to debunk allegations that does not utilze any uncovered documentation to Back their view. This is why it’s important to utilize more than one source, that includes documentation and testimony that can be provided, which so happens the New York Times and the Hill articles both independently provided the same questions and similar allegations that need to be investigated.

Having several eyewitness accounts (reporting) utilizing uncovered revealed documents, named sources, NRC accounts will always Trump (no pun intended) one “opinion” piece without provided uncovered documents that can be provided as proof to counter the allegations. That’s what it meant by “doing your research” ... over simply referencing what amounts to just one opinion piece.

And yet, no answer....

For the deal to go through, nine separate departments had to approve it. Where's your evidence any of the other 8 were bribed?

he don't need no damn evidence.... his delusions tell him what to believe...

The New York Times and The Hill each provided their accounts of payments to the Clinton Foundation who was Secretary of State, add a private tarmac meeting with Loretta Lynch, Bill Cinton’s Private jet meeting with those tied to Uranium One, a gag order on an undercover FBI informant involved with knowledge o the Uranium One deal, and that he was forced to remain silent contrary to what his information could provide through a Democrat administration where Hillary stood as one of Obama’s personal department heads..

Yes- there were payments to the Clinton Foundation- and? Were any illegal? No. Did that money go to the Clinton's themselves? No.
Yes- Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State- and? The State Department was one of 9 departments in a committee which approved the deal- and there is no evidence that Hillary Clinton was involved with State's recomendation at all. And then the Nuclear Regulatory Commission had to approve it- and President Obama had to sign off on the deal. Neither Hillary or the State Department had the ability or responsibility to make this deal happen.
Yes- Bill Clinton met with Loretta Lynch on the tarmac- which was terrible optics- but there is absolutely nothing to indicate that this has anything to do with Uranium One- nor would it make any sense- since neither Bill Clinton or Loretta Lynch had anything to do with Uranium One.

And the gag order was lifted on the FBI informant a month ago- why hasn't the GOP Congress interviewed him yet? Almost like Grassley just wanted the publicity

Ok. Do you recall in high school you were instructed to read a few paragraphs and then instructed to answer the following questions? Consider this to be a part of that same skill level reading comprehension test.

(1) Was Bill Clinton present on a private jet holding a meeting with those tied to the interest of Uranium One?

(2) Was Bill Clinton present when Frank Giustra made the deal for Uranium One?

(3) Did those finances into the foundation come from those with ties to Uranium One?

(4) Is Uranium One tied to the Russian Kremlin.

(5) Do any of those payments linked to the Clintons through their Foundation, shortly follow an alleged agreement through and involving those with connections to Uranium One.... more than once?

(6) Did Uranium One’s American Arm state that shipments from the United States was always proven to be secure through NRC regulation standards, yet what was Mr. Dzhakishev arrested for?

(7) How many financial transaction payments, from those benefiting from Uranium One, were going into the Clinton Foundation and how much? Again, these aren’t the only financial payments received that were uncovered.

(8) Did the Clonton’s publicly disclose those contributions they received, in acordance with an agreement with the Obama White House to do so?

Just to make a few questions both separate sourced articles had revealed.

 

[Faun]

I do go to a single source “opinion” piece in trying to debunk allegations that does not utilze any uncovered documentation to Back their view. This is why it’s important to utilize more than one source, that includes documentation and testimony that can be provided, which so happens the New York Times and the Hill articles both independently provided the same questions and similar allegations that need to be investigated.

Having several eyewitness accounts (reporting) utilizing uncovered revealed documents, named sources, NRC accounts will always Trump (no pun intended) one “opinion” piece without provided uncovered documents that can be provided as proof to counter the allegations. That’s what it meant by “doing your research” ... over simply referencing what amounts to just one opinion piece.

And yet, no answer....

For the deal to go through, nine separate departments had to approve it. Where's your evidence any of the other 8 were bribed?

he don't need no damn evidence.... his delusions tell him what to believe...

The New York Times and The Hill each provided their accounts of payments to the Clinton Foundation who was Secretary of State, add a private tarmac meeting with Loretta Lynch, Bill Cinton’s Private jet meeting with those tied to Uranium One, a gag order on an undercover FBI informant involved with knowledge o the Uranium One deal, and that he was forced to remain silent contrary to what his information could provide through a Democrat administration where Hillary stood as one of Obama’s personal department heads..

Yes- there were payments to the Clinton Foundation- and? Were any illegal? No. Did that money go to the Clinton's themselves? No.
Yes- Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State- and? The State Department was one of 9 departments in a committee which approved the deal- and there is no evidence that Hillary Clinton was involved with State's recomendation at all. And then the Nuclear Regulatory Commission had to approve it- and President Obama had to sign off on the deal. Neither Hillary or the State Department had the ability or responsibility to make this deal happen.
Yes- Bill Clinton met with Loretta Lynch on the tarmac- which was terrible optics- but there is absolutely nothing to indicate that this has anything to do with Uranium One- nor would it make any sense- since neither Bill Clinton or Loretta Lynch had anything to do with Uranium One.

And the gag order was lifted on the FBI informant a month ago- why hasn't the GOP Congress interviewed him yet? Almost like Grassley just wanted the publicity

(1) Did those finances into the foundation come from those with ties to Uranium One? (2) Is Uranium One tied to the Russian Kremlin. (3) Do any of those payments linked to the Clintons through their Foundation, shortly follow an alleged agreement through and involving those with connections to Uranium One.... more than once? (4) Did Uranium One’s American Arm state that shipments from the United States was always proven to be secure through NRC regulation standards only to have a department heads tied to Uranium One ( Mr. Dzhakishev ) arrested for illegal shipments of uranium? Not so secure is it? (5) Yet why the 3 documented financial transaction payments, from those benefiting from Uranium One, going into the Clinton Foundation? Again, these aren’t the only financial payments received that were uncovered. (6) Why was it shown thise contributions were not publicly disclosed, despite an agreement with the Obama White House to do so?

Just to make a few questions both separate sourced articles had revealed.

You’re still avoiding — do you have any evidence any of the other 8 departments were bribed. Certainly, even someone as dimwitted as you can appreciate the ludicrousness of bribing only one person in one department when 8 other departments had to sign off on that deal for it to go through? Plus the NRC and the president as Syriusly pointed out.

 

[Syriusly]

I do go to a single source “opinion” piece in trying to debunk allegations that does not utilze any uncovered documentation to Back their view. This is why it’s important to utilize more than one source, that includes documentation and testimony that can be provided, which so happens the New York Times and the Hill articles both independently provided the same questions and similar allegations that need to be investigated.

Having several eyewitness accounts (reporting) utilizing uncovered revealed documents, named sources, NRC accounts will always Trump (no pun intended) one “opinion” piece without provided uncovered documents that can be provided as proof to counter the allegations. That’s what it meant by “doing your research” ... over simply referencing what amounts to just one opinion piece.

And yet, no answer....

For the deal to go through, nine separate departments had to approve it. Where's your evidence any of the other 8 were bribed?

he don't need no damn evidence.... his delusions tell him what to believe...

The New York Times and The Hill each provided their accounts of payments to the Clinton Foundation who was Secretary of State, add a private tarmac meeting with Loretta Lynch, Bill Cinton’s Private jet meeting with those tied to Uranium One, a gag order on an undercover FBI informant involved with knowledge o the Uranium One deal, and that he was forced to remain silent contrary to what his information could provide through a Democrat administration where Hillary stood as one of Obama’s personal department heads..

Yes- there were payments to the Clinton Foundation- and? Were any illegal? No. Did that money go to the Clinton's themselves? No.
Yes- Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State- and? The State Department was one of 9 departments in a committee which approved the deal- and there is no evidence that Hillary Clinton was involved with State's recomendation at all. And then the Nuclear Regulatory Commission had to approve it- and President Obama had to sign off on the deal. Neither Hillary or the State Department had the ability or responsibility to make this deal happen.
Yes- Bill Clinton met with Loretta Lynch on the tarmac- which was terrible optics- but there is absolutely nothing to indicate that this has anything to do with Uranium One- nor would it make any sense- since neither Bill Clinton or Loretta Lynch had anything to do with Uranium One.

And the gag order was lifted on the FBI informant a month ago- why hasn't the GOP Congress interviewed him yet? Almost like Grassley just wanted the publicity

(5) Do any of those payments linked to the Clintons through their Foundation, shortly follow an alleged agreement through and involving those with connections to Uranium One.... more than once?.

a) Did any of those payments directly benefit either of the Clinton's?

b) I have no idea what you think you are saying when you said:
shortly follow an alleged agreement through and involving those with connections to Uranium One.... more than once?

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

And yet, no answer....

For the deal to go through, nine separate departments had to approve it. Where's your evidence any of the other 8 were bribed?

he don't need no damn evidence.... his delusions tell him what to believe...

The New York Times and The Hill each provided their accounts of payments to the Clinton Foundation who was Secretary of State, add a private tarmac meeting with Loretta Lynch, Bill Cinton’s Private jet meeting with those tied to Uranium One, a gag order on an undercover FBI informant involved with knowledge o the Uranium One deal, and that he was forced to remain silent contrary to what his information could provide through a Democrat administration where Hillary stood as one of Obama’s personal department heads..

Yes- there were payments to the Clinton Foundation- and? Were any illegal? No. Did that money go to the Clinton's themselves? No.
Yes- Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State- and? The State Department was one of 9 departments in a committee which approved the deal- and there is no evidence that Hillary Clinton was involved with State's recomendation at all. And then the Nuclear Regulatory Commission had to approve it- and President Obama had to sign off on the deal. Neither Hillary or the State Department had the ability or responsibility to make this deal happen.
Yes- Bill Clinton met with Loretta Lynch on the tarmac- which was terrible optics- but there is absolutely nothing to indicate that this has anything to do with Uranium One- nor would it make any sense- since neither Bill Clinton or Loretta Lynch had anything to do with Uranium One.

And the gag order was lifted on the FBI informant a month ago- why hasn't the GOP Congress interviewed him yet? Almost like Grassley just wanted the publicity

(1) Did those finances into the foundation come from those with ties to Uranium One? (2) Is Uranium One tied to the Russian Kremlin. (3) Do any of those payments linked to the Clintons through their Foundation, shortly follow an alleged agreement through and involving those with connections to Uranium One.... more than once? (4) Did Uranium One’s American Arm state that shipments from the United States was always proven to be secure through NRC regulation standards only to have a department heads tied to Uranium One ( Mr. Dzhakishev ) arrested for illegal shipments of uranium? Not so secure is it? (5) Yet why the 3 documented financial transaction payments, from those benefiting from Uranium One, going into the Clinton Foundation? Again, these aren’t the only financial payments received that were uncovered. (6) Why was it shown thise contributions were not publicly disclosed, despite an agreement with the Obama White House to do so?

Just to make a few questions both separate sourced articles had revealed.

You’re still avoiding — do you have any evidence any of the other 8 departments were bribed. Certainly, even someone as dimwitted as you can appreciate the ludicrousness of brining only one person in one department when 8 other departments had to sign off on that deal for it to go through? Plus the NRC and the president as Syriusly pointed out.

Perhaps you know Bill Clinton’s specific position under the Obama Administration?

A position that would find him... require of him ...to be in a private jet meeting with those involved in Uranium One, to help sign a deal, that includes being a recipient of 3 separate financial transactions.

You sound well versed enough in Uranium One to provide such an answer.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

And yet, no answer....

For the deal to go through, nine separate departments had to approve it. Where's your evidence any of the other 8 were bribed?

he don't need no damn evidence.... his delusions tell him what to believe...

The New York Times and The Hill each provided their accounts of payments to the Clinton Foundation who was Secretary of State, add a private tarmac meeting with Loretta Lynch, Bill Cinton’s Private jet meeting with those tied to Uranium One, a gag order on an undercover FBI informant involved with knowledge o the Uranium One deal, and that he was forced to remain silent contrary to what his information could provide through a Democrat administration where Hillary stood as one of Obama’s personal department heads..

Yes- there were payments to the Clinton Foundation- and? Were any illegal? No. Did that money go to the Clinton's themselves? No.
Yes- Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State- and? The State Department was one of 9 departments in a committee which approved the deal- and there is no evidence that Hillary Clinton was involved with State's recomendation at all. And then the Nuclear Regulatory Commission had to approve it- and President Obama had to sign off on the deal. Neither Hillary or the State Department had the ability or responsibility to make this deal happen.
Yes- Bill Clinton met with Loretta Lynch on the tarmac- which was terrible optics- but there is absolutely nothing to indicate that this has anything to do with Uranium One- nor would it make any sense- since neither Bill Clinton or Loretta Lynch had anything to do with Uranium One.

And the gag order was lifted on the FBI informant a month ago- why hasn't the GOP Congress interviewed him yet? Almost like Grassley just wanted the publicity

(5) Do any of those payments linked to the Clintons through their Foundation, shortly follow an alleged agreement through and involving those with connections to Uranium One.... more than once?.

a) Did any of those payments directly benefit either of the Clinton's?

b) I have no idea what you think you are saying when you said:
shortly follow an alleged agreement through and involving those with connections to Uranium One.... more than once?

They are found in the articles I posted.

 

[Faun]

he don't need no damn evidence.... his delusions tell him what to believe...

The New York Times and The Hill each provided their accounts of payments to the Clinton Foundation who was Secretary of State, add a private tarmac meeting with Loretta Lynch, Bill Cinton’s Private jet meeting with those tied to Uranium One, a gag order on an undercover FBI informant involved with knowledge o the Uranium One deal, and that he was forced to remain silent contrary to what his information could provide through a Democrat administration where Hillary stood as one of Obama’s personal department heads..

Yes- there were payments to the Clinton Foundation- and? Were any illegal? No. Did that money go to the Clinton's themselves? No.
Yes- Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State- and? The State Department was one of 9 departments in a committee which approved the deal- and there is no evidence that Hillary Clinton was involved with State's recomendation at all. And then the Nuclear Regulatory Commission had to approve it- and President Obama had to sign off on the deal. Neither Hillary or the State Department had the ability or responsibility to make this deal happen.
Yes- Bill Clinton met with Loretta Lynch on the tarmac- which was terrible optics- but there is absolutely nothing to indicate that this has anything to do with Uranium One- nor would it make any sense- since neither Bill Clinton or Loretta Lynch had anything to do with Uranium One.

And the gag order was lifted on the FBI informant a month ago- why hasn't the GOP Congress interviewed him yet? Almost like Grassley just wanted the publicity

(1) Did those finances into the foundation come from those with ties to Uranium One? (2) Is Uranium One tied to the Russian Kremlin. (3) Do any of those payments linked to the Clintons through their Foundation, shortly follow an alleged agreement through and involving those with connections to Uranium One.... more than once? (4) Did Uranium One’s American Arm state that shipments from the United States was always proven to be secure through NRC regulation standards only to have a department heads tied to Uranium One ( Mr. Dzhakishev ) arrested for illegal shipments of uranium? Not so secure is it? (5) Yet why the 3 documented financial transaction payments, from those benefiting from Uranium One, going into the Clinton Foundation? Again, these aren’t the only financial payments received that were uncovered. (6) Why was it shown thise contributions were not publicly disclosed, despite an agreement with the Obama White House to do so?

Just to make a few questions both separate sourced articles had revealed.

You’re still avoiding — do you have any evidence any of the other 8 departments were bribed. Certainly, even someone as dimwitted as you can appreciate the ludicrousness of brining only one person in one department when 8 other departments had to sign off on that deal for it to go through? Plus the NRC and the president as Syriusly pointed out.

Perhaps you know Bill Clinton’s specific position under the Obama Administration?

A position that would find him o be in a private jet meeting with those involved in Uranium One, to help sign a deal, that includes be a recipient of 3 separate financial transactions.

LOL

That’s not the question I asked. I didn’t ask about Bill Clinton. I asked if you have any evidence that any of the other 8 department heads were bribed. No one in their right mind is going to give millions to one person in order to make a deal go through which required 9 separate departments, plus the NRC, plus the president.

And let’s not forget how thoroughly debunked this story has been to the point that even right-leaning Fox News did a piece on debunking it.

And how the last remaining holdouts have to keep changing their talking points as they get pealed away like an onion. Like the original claim that the Clintons were paid some $145 million for this deal — until it turn out 90% of that money was donated to the Clinton Foundation before Hillary was even Secretary of State.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

The New York Times and The Hill each provided their accounts of payments to the Clinton Foundation who was Secretary of State, add a private tarmac meeting with Loretta Lynch, Bill Cinton’s Private jet meeting with those tied to Uranium One, a gag order on an undercover FBI informant involved with knowledge o the Uranium One deal, and that he was forced to remain silent contrary to what his information could provide through a Democrat administration where Hillary stood as one of Obama’s personal department heads..

Yes- there were payments to the Clinton Foundation- and? Were any illegal? No. Did that money go to the Clinton's themselves? No.
Yes- Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State- and? The State Department was one of 9 departments in a committee which approved the deal- and there is no evidence that Hillary Clinton was involved with State's recomendation at all. And then the Nuclear Regulatory Commission had to approve it- and President Obama had to sign off on the deal. Neither Hillary or the State Department had the ability or responsibility to make this deal happen.
Yes- Bill Clinton met with Loretta Lynch on the tarmac- which was terrible optics- but there is absolutely nothing to indicate that this has anything to do with Uranium One- nor would it make any sense- since neither Bill Clinton or Loretta Lynch had anything to do with Uranium One.

And the gag order was lifted on the FBI informant a month ago- why hasn't the GOP Congress interviewed him yet? Almost like Grassley just wanted the publicity

(1) Did those finances into the foundation come from those with ties to Uranium One? (2) Is Uranium One tied to the Russian Kremlin. (3) Do any of those payments linked to the Clintons through their Foundation, shortly follow an alleged agreement through and involving those with connections to Uranium One.... more than once? (4) Did Uranium One’s American Arm state that shipments from the United States was always proven to be secure through NRC regulation standards only to have a department heads tied to Uranium One ( Mr. Dzhakishev ) arrested for illegal shipments of uranium? Not so secure is it? (5) Yet why the 3 documented financial transaction payments, from those benefiting from Uranium One, going into the Clinton Foundation? Again, these aren’t the only financial payments received that were uncovered. (6) Why was it shown thise contributions were not publicly disclosed, despite an agreement with the Obama White House to do so?

Just to make a few questions both separate sourced articles had revealed.

You’re still avoiding — do you have any evidence any of the other 8 departments were bribed. Certainly, even someone as dimwitted as you can appreciate the ludicrousness of brining only one person in one department when 8 other departments had to sign off on that deal for it to go through? Plus the NRC and the president as Syriusly pointed out.

Perhaps you know Bill Clinton’s specific position under the Obama Administration?

A position that would find him o be in a private jet meeting with those involved in Uranium One, to help sign a deal, that includes be a recipient of 3 separate financial transactions.

LOL

That’s not the question I asked. I didn’t ask about Bill Clinton. I asked if you have any evidence that any of the other 8 department heads were bribed. No one in their right mind is going to give millions to one person in order to make a deal go through which required 9 separate departments, plus the NRC, plus the president.

And let’s not forget how thoroughly debunked this story has been to the point that even right-leaning Fox News did a piece on debunking it.

And how the last remaining holdouts have to keep changing their talking points as they get pealed away like an onion. Like the original claim that the Clintons were paid some $145 million for this deal — until it turn out 90% of that money was donated to the Clinton Foundation before Hillary was even Secretary of State.

Debunked means you can provide documented transactions, documents or named source. Let’s see you provide them that specifically counters uncovered documented sources of information from two independent sources - The Hill and The New York Times.

You see the real difference is you are all talk with nothing to provide in the way of conclusive documented evidence.

The Washington Post ... mind you...alleged there was no way possible uranium could be exported to Europe, none of the suppliers had a license to, Remember that? However, documented evidence says the contrary.

See how easy that is? Documented Evidence and named sources. Consider yourself educated in basic research 101

 

[Faun]

Yes- there were payments to the Clinton Foundation- and? Were any illegal? No. Did that money go to the Clinton's themselves? No.
Yes- Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State- and? The State Department was one of 9 departments in a committee which approved the deal- and there is no evidence that Hillary Clinton was involved with State's recomendation at all. And then the Nuclear Regulatory Commission had to approve it- and President Obama had to sign off on the deal. Neither Hillary or the State Department had the ability or responsibility to make this deal happen.
Yes- Bill Clinton met with Loretta Lynch on the tarmac- which was terrible optics- but there is absolutely nothing to indicate that this has anything to do with Uranium One- nor would it make any sense- since neither Bill Clinton or Loretta Lynch had anything to do with Uranium One.

And the gag order was lifted on the FBI informant a month ago- why hasn't the GOP Congress interviewed him yet? Almost like Grassley just wanted the publicity

(1) Did those finances into the foundation come from those with ties to Uranium One? (2) Is Uranium One tied to the Russian Kremlin. (3) Do any of those payments linked to the Clintons through their Foundation, shortly follow an alleged agreement through and involving those with connections to Uranium One.... more than once? (4) Did Uranium One’s American Arm state that shipments from the United States was always proven to be secure through NRC regulation standards only to have a department heads tied to Uranium One ( Mr. Dzhakishev ) arrested for illegal shipments of uranium? Not so secure is it? (5) Yet why the 3 documented financial transaction payments, from those benefiting from Uranium One, going into the Clinton Foundation? Again, these aren’t the only financial payments received that were uncovered. (6) Why was it shown thise contributions were not publicly disclosed, despite an agreement with the Obama White House to do so?

Just to make a few questions both separate sourced articles had revealed.

You’re still avoiding — do you have any evidence any of the other 8 departments were bribed. Certainly, even someone as dimwitted as you can appreciate the ludicrousness of brining only one person in one department when 8 other departments had to sign off on that deal for it to go through? Plus the NRC and the president as Syriusly pointed out.

Perhaps you know Bill Clinton’s specific position under the Obama Administration?

A position that would find him o be in a private jet meeting with those involved in Uranium One, to help sign a deal, that includes be a recipient of 3 separate financial transactions.

LOL

That’s not the question I asked. I didn’t ask about Bill Clinton. I asked if you have any evidence that any of the other 8 department heads were bribed. No one in their right mind is going to give millions to one person in order to make a deal go through which required 9 separate departments, plus the NRC, plus the president.

And let’s not forget how thoroughly debunked this story has been to the point that even right-leaning Fox News did a piece on debunking it.

And how the last remaining holdouts have to keep changing their talking points as they get pealed away like an onion. Like the original claim that the Clintons were paid some $145 million for this deal — until it turn out 90% of that money was donated to the Clinton Foundation before Hillary was even Secretary of State.

Debunked means you can provide documented transactions, documents or named source. Let’s see you provide them that specifically counters uncovered documented sources of information from two independent sources - The Hill and The New York Times.

You see the real difference is you are all talk with nothing to provide in the way of conclusive documented evidence.

The Washington Post ... mind you...alleged there was no way possible uranium could be exported to Europe, none of the suppliers had a license to, Remembwr that? However, documented evidence says the contrary.

See how easy that is? Documented Evidence and named sources. Consider yourself educated in basic research 101

LOL

Debunked mean even rightwing news is claiming the story is bullshit.

And I note, you failed miserably to provide any evidence that any one of the 11 departments, agencies, or president, ALL of whom were needed for the deal to happen, was bribed.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

(1) Did those finances into the foundation come from those with ties to Uranium One? (2) Is Uranium One tied to the Russian Kremlin. (3) Do any of those payments linked to the Clintons through their Foundation, shortly follow an alleged agreement through and involving those with connections to Uranium One.... more than once? (4) Did Uranium One’s American Arm state that shipments from the United States was always proven to be secure through NRC regulation standards only to have a department heads tied to Uranium One ( Mr. Dzhakishev ) arrested for illegal shipments of uranium? Not so secure is it? (5) Yet why the 3 documented financial transaction payments, from those benefiting from Uranium One, going into the Clinton Foundation? Again, these aren’t the only financial payments received that were uncovered. (6) Why was it shown thise contributions were not publicly disclosed, despite an agreement with the Obama White House to do so?

Just to make a few questions both separate sourced articles had revealed.

You’re still avoiding — do you have any evidence any of the other 8 departments were bribed. Certainly, even someone as dimwitted as you can appreciate the ludicrousness of brining only one person in one department when 8 other departments had to sign off on that deal for it to go through? Plus the NRC and the president as Syriusly pointed out.

Perhaps you know Bill Clinton’s specific position under the Obama Administration?

A position that would find him o be in a private jet meeting with those involved in Uranium One, to help sign a deal, that includes be a recipient of 3 separate financial transactions.

LOL

That’s not the question I asked. I didn’t ask about Bill Clinton. I asked if you have any evidence that any of the other 8 department heads were bribed. No one in their right mind is going to give millions to one person in order to make a deal go through which required 9 separate departments, plus the NRC, plus the president.

And let’s not forget how thoroughly debunked this story has been to the point that even right-leaning Fox News did a piece on debunking it.

And how the last remaining holdouts have to keep changing their talking points as they get pealed away like an onion. Like the original claim that the Clintons were paid some $145 million for this deal — until it turn out 90% of that money was donated to the Clinton Foundation before Hillary was even Secretary of State.

Debunked means you can provide documented transactions, documents or named source. Let’s see you provide them that specifically counters uncovered documented sources of information from two independent sources - The Hill and The New York Times.

You see the real difference is you are all talk with nothing to provide in the way of conclusive documented evidence.

The Washington Post ... mind you...alleged there was no way possible uranium could be exported to Europe, none of the suppliers had a license to, Remembwr that? However, documented evidence says the contrary.

See how easy that is? Documented Evidence and named sources. Consider yourself educated in basic research 101

LOL

Debunked mean even rightwing news is claiming the story is bullshit.

And I note, you failed miserably to provide any evidence that any one of the 11 departments, agencies, or president, ALL of whom were needed for the deal to happen, was bribed.

Again ... all talk, but just can’t provide any specific linked documented evidence that states (1) how nor (2) in what they show they are able to specifically debunk the two articles provided. A lot of the Hill’s articles on the subject, that happen to compliment the New York Times, date past Sheppard Smith’s remarks. Didn’t know that either... did you?

I’m also pretty sure I’d be accurate in saying, you never provide any links to back up any of your positions. Why should I waste my time with a kid who can’t provide his linked sources?

 

[Faun]

You’re still avoiding — do you have any evidence any of the other 8 departments were bribed. Certainly, even someone as dimwitted as you can appreciate the ludicrousness of brining only one person in one department when 8 other departments had to sign off on that deal for it to go through? Plus the NRC and the president as Syriusly pointed out.

Perhaps you know Bill Clinton’s specific position under the Obama Administration?

A position that would find him o be in a private jet meeting with those involved in Uranium One, to help sign a deal, that includes be a recipient of 3 separate financial transactions.

LOL

That’s not the question I asked. I didn’t ask about Bill Clinton. I asked if you have any evidence that any of the other 8 department heads were bribed. No one in their right mind is going to give millions to one person in order to make a deal go through which required 9 separate departments, plus the NRC, plus the president.

And let’s not forget how thoroughly debunked this story has been to the point that even right-leaning Fox News did a piece on debunking it.

And how the last remaining holdouts have to keep changing their talking points as they get pealed away like an onion. Like the original claim that the Clintons were paid some $145 million for this deal — until it turn out 90% of that money was donated to the Clinton Foundation before Hillary was even Secretary of State.

Debunked means you can provide documented transactions, documents or named source. Let’s see you provide them that specifically counters uncovered documented sources of information from two independent sources - The Hill and The New York Times.

You see the real difference is you are all talk with nothing to provide in the way of conclusive documented evidence.

The Washington Post ... mind you...alleged there was no way possible uranium could be exported to Europe, none of the suppliers had a license to, Remembwr that? However, documented evidence says the contrary.

See how easy that is? Documented Evidence and named sources. Consider yourself educated in basic research 101

LOL

Debunked mean even rightwing news is claiming the story is bullshit.

And I note, you failed miserably to provide any evidence that any one of the 11 departments, agencies, or president, ALL of whom were needed for the deal to happen, was bribed.

Again ... all talk, but just can’t provide any specific linked documented evidence that states (1) how nor (2) in what they show they are able to specifically debunk the two articles provided. A lot of the Hill’s articles on the subject, that happen to compliment the New York Times, date past Sheppard Smith’s remarks. Didn’t know that either... did you?

I’m also pretty sure I’d be accurate in saying, you never provide any links to back up any of your positions. Why should I waste my time with a kid who can’t provide his linked sources?

“Again ... all talk, but just can’t provide...”

LOL

Spits the idiot who failed provide evidence that any one of the other 8 departments were bribed.

You have anything but projection?

 

[Syriusly]

You’re still avoiding — do you have any evidence any of the other 8 departments were bribed. Certainly, even someone as dimwitted as you can appreciate the ludicrousness of brining only one person in one department when 8 other departments had to sign off on that deal for it to go through? Plus the NRC and the president as Syriusly pointed out.

Perhaps you know Bill Clinton’s specific position under the Obama Administration?

A position that would find him o be in a private jet meeting with those involved in Uranium One, to help sign a deal, that includes be a recipient of 3 separate financial transactions.

LOL

That’s not the question I asked. I didn’t ask about Bill Clinton. I asked if you have any evidence that any of the other 8 department heads were bribed. No one in their right mind is going to give millions to one person in order to make a deal go through which required 9 separate departments, plus the NRC, plus the president.

And let’s not forget how thoroughly debunked this story has been to the point that even right-leaning Fox News did a piece on debunking it.

And how the last remaining holdouts have to keep changing their talking points as they get pealed away like an onion. Like the original claim that the Clintons were paid some $145 million for this deal — until it turn out 90% of that money was donated to the Clinton Foundation before Hillary was even Secretary of State.

Debunked means you can provide documented transactions, documents or named source. Let’s see you provide them that specifically counters uncovered documented sources of information from two independent sources - The Hill and The New York Times.

You see the real difference is you are all talk with nothing to provide in the way of conclusive documented evidence.

The Washington Post ... mind you...alleged there was no way possible uranium could be exported to Europe, none of the suppliers had a license to, Remembwr that? However, documented evidence says the contrary.

See how easy that is? Documented Evidence and named sources. Consider yourself educated in basic research 101

LOL

Debunked mean even rightwing news is claiming the story is bullshit.

And I note, you failed miserably to provide any evidence that any one of the 11 departments, agencies, or president, ALL of whom were needed for the deal to happen, was bribed.

Again ... all talk, but just can’t provide any specific linked documented evidence that states (1) how nor (2) in what they show they are able to specifically debunk the two articles provided. A lot of the Hill’s articles on the subject, that happen to compliment the New York Times, date past Sheppard Smith’s remarks. Didn’t know that either... did you?

I’m also pretty sure I’d be accurate in saying, you never provide any links to back up any of your positions. Why should I waste my time with a kid who can’t provide his linked sources?

Debunk what? Exactly?

There is absolutely nothing in the Times article which shows any quid pro quo. There is nothing which shows how any payment by anyone to the Clinton Foundation personally benefits either of the Clintons. There is nothing in the article which demonstrates that any of the payments made to the Clinton Foundation had any effect on the decision of any of the 9 members of the committee who forwarded the proposal to the President for his signature.

 

[Syriusly]

he don't need no damn evidence.... his delusions tell him what to believe...

The New York Times and The Hill each provided their accounts of payments to the Clinton Foundation who was Secretary of State, add a private tarmac meeting with Loretta Lynch, Bill Cinton’s Private jet meeting with those tied to Uranium One, a gag order on an undercover FBI informant involved with knowledge o the Uranium One deal, and that he was forced to remain silent contrary to what his information could provide through a Democrat administration where Hillary stood as one of Obama’s personal department heads..

Yes- there were payments to the Clinton Foundation- and? Were any illegal? No. Did that money go to the Clinton's themselves? No.
Yes- Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State- and? The State Department was one of 9 departments in a committee which approved the deal- and there is no evidence that Hillary Clinton was involved with State's recomendation at all. And then the Nuclear Regulatory Commission had to approve it- and President Obama had to sign off on the deal. Neither Hillary or the State Department had the ability or responsibility to make this deal happen.
Yes- Bill Clinton met with Loretta Lynch on the tarmac- which was terrible optics- but there is absolutely nothing to indicate that this has anything to do with Uranium One- nor would it make any sense- since neither Bill Clinton or Loretta Lynch had anything to do with Uranium One.

And the gag order was lifted on the FBI informant a month ago- why hasn't the GOP Congress interviewed him yet? Almost like Grassley just wanted the publicity

(5) Do any of those payments linked to the Clintons through their Foundation, shortly follow an alleged agreement through and involving those with connections to Uranium One.... more than once?.

a) Did any of those payments directly benefit either of the Clinton's?

b) I have no idea what you think you are saying when you said:
shortly follow an alleged agreement through and involving those with connections to Uranium One.... more than once?

They are found in the articles I posted.

LOL- sure they are.....sure they are.