Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Tell us all again how this has been “debunked”...Yes and it's been thoroughly debunked, time and time again.
Sooooo...two major media sources (one extremely left-wing) confirmed the story as did the F.B.I. and your lame as approach is to deny it? Typical progressive.1. Peter Schweizer Broke the Uranium One Scandal
Government Accountability Institute (GAI) President and Breitbart News Senior Editor-at-Large Peter Schweizer broke the Uranium One scandal in his book Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich. In the book, he reported that Clinton’s State Department, along with other federal agencies, approved the transfer of 20 percent of all U.S. uranium to Russia and that nine foreign investors in the deal gave $145 million to Hillary and Bill Clinton’s personal charity, the Clinton Foundation.
2. The New York Times Confirmed the Scandal in 2015
The New York Times confirmed Schweizer’s Uranium One revelations in a 4,000-word front-page story by a Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative reporter. It detailed how the Russian energy giant Rosatom had taken over the Canadian firm with three separate purchases between 2009 and 2013, largely coinciding with Hillary Clinton’s time as secretary of state.
3. The FBI Uncovered Evidence that Russian Money Was Funneled to the Clinton Foundation
The Hill reported last week that ahead of the deal, the FBI had uncovered “substantial evidence that Russian nuclear industry officials were engaged in bribery, kickbacks, extortion and money laundering” to expand Russia’s nuclear footprint in the U.S. as early as 2009. The agency also found that Russian nuclear officials had routed millions of dollars to the U.S. to benefit the Clinton Foundation. The Justice Department would sit on the evidence for four years before looking to prosecute, by which time the deal had been approved.
Tell us all again how this has been “debunked”...Yes and it's been thoroughly debunked, time and time again.
Sooooo...two major media sources (one extremely left-wing) confirmed the story as did the F.B.I. and your lame as approach is to deny it? Typical progressive.1. Peter Schweizer Broke the Uranium One Scandal
Government Accountability Institute (GAI) President and Breitbart News Senior Editor-at-Large Peter Schweizer broke the Uranium One scandal in his book Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich. In the book, he reported that Clinton’s State Department, along with other federal agencies, approved the transfer of 20 percent of all U.S. uranium to Russia and that nine foreign investors in the deal gave $145 million to Hillary and Bill Clinton’s personal charity, the Clinton Foundation.
2. The New York Times Confirmed the Scandal in 2015
The New York Times confirmed Schweizer’s Uranium One revelations in a 4,000-word front-page story by a Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative reporter. It detailed how the Russian energy giant Rosatom had taken over the Canadian firm with three separate purchases between 2009 and 2013, largely coinciding with Hillary Clinton’s time as secretary of state.
3. The FBI Uncovered Evidence that Russian Money Was Funneled to the Clinton Foundation
The Hill reported last week that ahead of the deal, the FBI had uncovered “substantial evidence that Russian nuclear industry officials were engaged in bribery, kickbacks, extortion and money laundering” to expand Russia’s nuclear footprint in the U.S. as early as 2009. The agency also found that Russian nuclear officials had routed millions of dollars to the U.S. to benefit the Clinton Foundation. The Justice Department would sit on the evidence for four years before looking to prosecute, by which time the deal had been approved.
7 Uranium One Facts Every American Should Know - Breitbart
It’s #1 because it broke the story, you dumb ass (you’re so stupid you even bolded it). Peter Schweizer uncovered the scandal. That also makes it chronological. Good grief are you the ultimate dimwit.Tell us all again how this has been “debunked”...Yes and it's been thoroughly debunked, time and time again.
Sooooo...two major media sources (one extremely left-wing) confirmed the story as did the F.B.I. and your lame as approach is to deny it? Typical progressive.1. Peter Schweizer Broke the Uranium One Scandal
Government Accountability Institute (GAI) President and Breitbart News Senior Editor-at-Large Peter Schweizer broke the Uranium One scandal in his book Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich. In the book, he reported that Clinton’s State Department, along with other federal agencies, approved the transfer of 20 percent of all U.S. uranium to Russia and that nine foreign investors in the deal gave $145 million to Hillary and Bill Clinton’s personal charity, the Clinton Foundation.
2. The New York Times Confirmed the Scandal in 2015
The New York Times confirmed Schweizer’s Uranium One revelations in a 4,000-word front-page story by a Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative reporter. It detailed how the Russian energy giant Rosatom had taken over the Canadian firm with three separate purchases between 2009 and 2013, largely coinciding with Hillary Clinton’s time as secretary of state.
3. The FBI Uncovered Evidence that Russian Money Was Funneled to the Clinton Foundation
The Hill reported last week that ahead of the deal, the FBI had uncovered “substantial evidence that Russian nuclear industry officials were engaged in bribery, kickbacks, extortion and money laundering” to expand Russia’s nuclear footprint in the U.S. as early as 2009. The agency also found that Russian nuclear officials had routed millions of dollars to the U.S. to benefit the Clinton Foundation. The Justice Department would sit on the evidence for four years before looking to prosecute, by which time the deal had been approved.
7 Uranium One Facts Every American Should Know - Breitbart
Dumbass, tell us why is NUMBER 1! thing to know about Uranium One is...Peter Schweizer Broke the Uranium One Scandal in book which you can buy for a small small..!
Because this joke of an article is written by wingnuts selling books to other wingnut dupes, that's why.
Exactly. They are talking out of both sides of their mouths.
They claim Russia is an enemy, yet they claim it's ok for Russia to control 20% of the US uranium reserves.
Which one is it? Are they are enemy or an ally?
The claim is that Sec. Clinton did something criminal during the approval process, or that she gave Russia 20% or our uranium. Neither of which are true. Not what I think about Russia owning the parent company that own these mines. The worst case is that Russia makes a profit from selling to our uranium to us. Certainly not what that cretin in the WH said about it.
They now the ability to CUT BACK production in the US in order to raise prices elsewhere ----- reduce investment in capital equipment or investment in that mines --- And OTHERWISE manipulate their growing share of world-wide uranium production. I can't help that leftists are too stupid to KNOW the full scope of the dangers here.
It's a matter of global dominance in that marketplace. A STRATEGICALLY critical marketplace. That is the issue. Not that they are here mining it.
What you don’t get is that this is NOT A SECURITY THREAT, it is a financial concern. All DoS did was approve this deal as not a security threat.
Russia has more uranium than it will ever need and has no use in exporting ours.
ANYTIME you give up sovereignty over natural resources
There was NO SOVEREIGNTY CHANGE - Canadian owned company became Russian owned company. United States has no more or less sovereignty it always had over this private mining.
I'm not RW.
Yea not RW, you just push every RW conspiracy theory that happens to come your way.
Got 20 years of SOLELY supporting 3rd party and Indie candidates. More of Liberal on Civil Liberties and social than you'll ever be. THIS is matter of a govt ROTTING from the inside. It's not partisan AT ALL. YOU -- just make it that way...
Yea? Non-partisan? What do you think about Mueller's investigation?
Special Counsel #2 can then name Special Counsel #1 as a person of interest and call HIM to answer questions about what HE knew about Russian bribery and pay-offs before the Uranium One deal.. 
What proof? What is it? Where is it?
It's indisputable that Hillary ILLEGALLY transmitted classified material on her private server. She skated and you were ecstatic about it. Don't believe me? Just watch James Comey's testimony to congress. You don't have to watch it all, just the first 14 seconds. You won't, of course.
no, that was a preconceived GOP Ad that was a set up, by Gowdy, in the hearing.... that ad ran at minimum 100 times in my market!
If you watched the entire hearing Comey was able to clarify the answers that Gowdy intentionally asked, in the manner he asked, for the campaign ad they were making....
the clinton scheduler, setting up a phone call, with a tiny little C in the copy, mismarked the document AND it was NOT marked classified, it was a PARTIAL marking....
MARKED classified is stamped at the top of the document, with the classification, with who classified it, with the date it was classified, with the Agency that classified it and the date the document is to be DEclassified.
Hillary received NO MARKED CLASSIFIED emails....
When Gowdy asked Comey about devices, Comey answered but what Hillary had testified is she did the email server for convience because she did not WANT TO CARRY TWO SEPARATE devices, a private phone and a government phone....
Comey testified about how many phones and servers she had over the 4 years, that were upgraded or replaced and NOT about her carrying more than one device/one cell phone in her purse....
the whole ad, WAS A LIE....was a set up by Gowdy in the hearing....
and PROOF is ALSO in the fact that the republicans never even requested a charge of perjury against her....
you got some sleazy, slimy, Republicans in Congress.....I suppose that's not anything new....
I'm not RW.
Yea not RW, you just push every RW conspiracy theory that happens to come your way.
Got 20 years of SOLELY supporting 3rd party and Indie candidates. More of Liberal on Civil Liberties and social than you'll ever be. THIS is matter of a govt ROTTING from the inside. It's not partisan AT ALL. YOU -- just make it that way...
Yea? Non-partisan? What do you think about Mueller's investigation?
Its off-topic --- but I have no problem with that. ESPECIALLY since the events and news of the past couple days almost certainly will trigger a SECOND independent counsel looking into Clinton/Podesta/DOJ issues.
Then -- it'll be EVEN BETTER -- Right?
"...the FBI's bust couldn't have come at a worse time for the Clintons as it came literally the day before Bill Clinton delivered a $500,000 speech in Moscow on behalf of a Russian bank with an interest in securing approval of the controversial Uranium One deal..."
Of course, given that the Clintons were on the verge of securing a windfall of donations for their "Clinton Foundation," which came shortly after the Uranium One deal was completed just a few months later....Hillary was forced to choose between exploiting an intelligence treasure chest of information for the benefit of the country at large or covering up yet another scandal that would potentially disrupt her family's personal self-enrichment schemes..."
What Do Hillary, Uranium One, And An FBI Bust Of A Deep Cover Russian Spy Network Have In Common?
My questions are:
1) At what point can liberals dismiss things such as the above because they supposedly come from conservative sites...and at what point does the burden of proof shift to the Clintons, and the Obamas and the liberals to explain just what the Hell was going on.
2) Why would a Russian operation:
a) involved in criminal enterprises, as are now proved and made public;
b) seeking to buy U. S. Uranium which needed the approval of the Obama administration and the Clinton State Department;
c) bother to stop and "donate" 145 million dollars to the Clinton Foundation; and
d) Why couldn't The Washington Post, a Pravda-like Shill for the Democratic Party, not be able to come up with a better excuse for the above than that it was sort of like people staying in a Trump Hotel to curry favor with Don Trump.
3) I have seen the number of 145 MILLION as the amount "donated" by the Russian Uranium Interests to the Clinton Foundation....but the amount is so enormous that I can hardly believe it myself...yet I have not seen it DENIED! Can any body prove it is the wrong amount?
Sounds like WATERGATE times 145 million dollars!
The claim is that Sec. Clinton did something criminal during the approval process, or that she gave Russia 20% or our uranium. Neither of which are true. Not what I think about Russia owning the parent company that own these mines. The worst case is that Russia makes a profit from selling to our uranium to us. Certainly not what that cretin in the WH said about it.
They now the ability to CUT BACK production in the US in order to raise prices elsewhere ----- reduce investment in capital equipment or investment in that mines --- And OTHERWISE manipulate their growing share of world-wide uranium production. I can't help that leftists are too stupid to KNOW the full scope of the dangers here.
It's a matter of global dominance in that marketplace. A STRATEGICALLY critical marketplace. That is the issue. Not that they are here mining it.
What you don’t get is that this is NOT A SECURITY THREAT, it is a financial concern. All DoS did was approve this deal as not a security threat.
Russia has more uranium than it will ever need and has no use in exporting ours.
ANYTIME you give up sovereignty over natural resources
There was NO SOVEREIGNTY CHANGE - Canadian owned company became Russian owned company. United States has no more or less sovereignty it always had over this private mining.
Need an answer to this question. Because obviously your mind is now owned by the DNC.
Which is larger potential strategic threat? Canada or Russia? You MIGHT want to discuss that with your handlers..
It the potential strategic threat that is the issue. The ability of potential rival to hold a key market as a bargaining chip against whatever sanctions or actions you want to place on them.
There is NO JUSTIFICATION whatsoever --- given the panic and dementia about Russia -- to be HELPING THEM line up a world-wide market control of nuclear fuel.
Unless of course --- you listened to how the former Obama Campaign mgr. explained this move this evening on Carlson. He flat out stated that the deal was related to getting Russian cooperation and sign off on the Iran Nuclear Pact. There you go. There's WHY it happened. There must of been a reason. Here's another price we paid for that POS treaty. Which accomplishes nothing but keeping Iran from becoming nuclear on Obama's watch. We paid dearly so that their 1st nuclear test didn't happen during HIS admin.
(( tinydancer -- did you catch that interview? It was very enlightening))
Answer my question above. And we can continue. If you Can't or Won't -- it not worth my time.
It the potential strategic threat that is the issue. The ability of potential rival to hold a key market as a bargaining chip against whatever sanctions or actions you want to place on them.
Republicans had to really search to come up with something 6 or 7 years old. In all that time, with the GOP controlling both houses, this is what they came up with?"...the FBI's bust couldn't have come at a worse time for the Clintons as it came literally the day before Bill Clinton delivered a $500,000 speech in Moscow on behalf of a Russian bank with an interest in securing approval of the controversial Uranium One deal..."
Of course, given that the Clintons were on the verge of securing a windfall of donations for their "Clinton Foundation," which came shortly after the Uranium One deal was completed just a few months later....Hillary was forced to choose between exploiting an intelligence treasure chest of information for the benefit of the country at large or covering up yet another scandal that would potentially disrupt her family's personal self-enrichment schemes..."
What Do Hillary, Uranium One, And An FBI Bust Of A Deep Cover Russian Spy Network Have In Common?
My questions are:
1) At what point can liberals dismiss things such as the above because they supposedly come from conservative sites...and at what point does the burden of proof shift to the Clintons, and the Obamas and the liberals to explain just what the Hell was going on.
2) Why would a Russian operation:
a) involved in criminal enterprises, as are now proved and made public;
b) seeking to buy U. S. Uranium which needed the approval of the Obama administration and the Clinton State Department;
c) bother to stop and "donate" 145 million dollars to the Clinton Foundation; and
d) Why couldn't The Washington Post, a Pravda-like Shill for the Democratic Party, not be able to come up with a better excuse for the above than that it was sort of like people staying in a Trump Hotel to curry favor with Don Trump.
3) I have seen the number of 145 MILLION as the amount "donated" by the Russian Uranium Interests to the Clinton Foundation....but the amount is so enormous that I can hardly believe it myself...yet I have not seen it DENIED! Can any body prove it is the wrong amount?
Sounds like WATERGATE times 145 million dollars!
Nobody knows how to deny reality like a progressive wing-nut...There's no export license for the uranium. It can only be sold to American companies.
The exposure of the Clinton's criminality is coming home to roost. This is enough to land them in jail.
WOW! Wall Street Whistleblower Says Clinton Foundation Purposely Hid Russian-Uranium One Payments
Clinton Foundation Did Not Report Russian Uranium One Payments, Wall Street Analyst Argues
