You made me do it. You made me go look up the US/Russian Uranium Deal.

[rdean]

The media should ignore this GOP conspiracy because it's a lie which is probably why they stopped talking about it. Come on, you guys gotta make a better scandal than this. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission and 7 other agencies approved the sale and it never even reached her desk. She was not involved at all and only the president, at that point, could veto the deal which he didn't. And, she always had a history of opposing the sale of anything she considered US Critical Assets. If she had been part of it, I suspect she would have voted against it. Come on. Give us a REAL scandal. Not ones that can be so easily debunked. Unless you just can't find one. Which is probably the case. You guys are always on the up side of sickening.

https://www.treasury.gov/resource-c...oreign-investment/Documents/CFIUSGuidance.pdf

https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2008-11-21/pdf/E8-27525.pdf


Treasury Department, Dec. 8, 2008: Only the President has the authority to suspend or prohibit a covered transaction. Pursuant to section 6(c) of Executive Order 11858, CFIUS refers a covered transaction to the President if CFIUS or any member of CFIUS recommends suspension or prohibition of the transaction, or if CFIUS otherwise seeks a Presidential determination on the transaction.

Even the president cannot prohibit a transaction without “credible evidence” that the “foreign interest exercising control might take action that threatens to impair the national security,” according to the regulation.

----------------------

She did not have veto power and it never reached her desk.

Hey, have you guys ever heard of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The name of it gives a clue about what it does.

The entire made up scandal from Peter Schweizer's book: “Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich”

And he walks back his lies when challenged. Republicans do that a lot. Here is part of his interview:

SCHWEIZER: Yeah, what I meant by veto power was as we explain the process, you know, if somebody objects it kicks in the special investigation -- but veto is probably not the best word.

VETO IS PROBABLY NOT THE BEST WORD??????????

Clinton Cash Author Peter Schweizer Admits He's Wrong On Bogus Clinton "Veto Power" Claim

Another GOP scandal bites the dust. Their base is so fucking gullible. Seriously gullible. And I feel dirty for having to go look it up and finding out the truth. If one of you did that, I wouldn't have to.

 

[owebo]

Frightening what hitlery did, isn't it.....

 

[rdean]

Frightening what hitlery did, isn't it.....

Yea, terribly frightening. Uh, what was she did?

 

[320 Years of History]

The "uranium deal" of which you speak was one whereby a Russian organization sought to buy a Toronto,. CA company. The Canadian company owned uranium mines in the U.S. and in Kazakhstan. The U.S. government must approve the transaction because of the U.S. uranium mine's being part of the deal. That said, the Russian buyer cannot export uranium from the U.S. If one looks at a map, one will find that Kazakhstan shares a border with Russia. I don't know what rules there are about the export of uranium from Kazakhstan or what Kazakhstan's ability to enforce them is.

 

[TNHarley]

LOL didn't the OP say Clinton didn't sign NAFTA?
Let me say this slowly R-U-S-S-I-A N-O-W C-O-N-T-R-O-L-S 20 P-E-R-C-E-N-T O-F U -S U-R-A-N-I-U-M
CFIUS is composed of the Dept of State. Which is led by the Sec of State. Lets be honest here..

 

[rdean]

LOL didn't the OP say Clinton didn't sign NAFTA?
Let me say this slowly R-U-S-S-I-A N-O-W C-O-N-T-R-O-L-S 20 P-E-R-C-E-N-T O-F U -S U-R-A-N-I-U-M
CFIUS is composed of the Dept of State. Which is led by the Sec of State. Lets be honest here..

Yea, because the nuclear regulatory commission does nothing nuclear.

 

[TNHarley]

LOL didn't the OP say Clinton didn't sign NAFTA?
Let me say this slowly R-U-S-S-I-A N-O-W C-O-N-T-R-O-L-S 20 P-E-R-C-E-N-T O-F U -S U-R-A-N-I-U-M
CFIUS is composed of the Dept of State. Which is led by the Sec of State. Lets be honest here..

Yea, because the nuclear regulatory commission does nothing nuclear.

AGAIN, that was an agreement. Not signing NAFTA into law. Goober

 

[westwall]

The "uranium deal" of which you speak was one whereby a Russian organization sought to buy a Toronto,. CA company. The Canadian company owned uranium mines in the U.S. and in Kazakhstan. The U.S. government must approve the transaction because of the U.S. uranium mine's being part of the deal. That said, the Russian buyer cannot export uranium from the U.S. If one looks at a map, one will find that Kazakhstan shares a border with Russia. I don't know what rules there are about the export of uranium from Kazakhstan or what Kazakhstan's ability to enforce them is.

I see you neglected to add the part where the deal was going nowhere till a sizable brib....er "donation" was made to the clinton foundation by the owners of the companies. Funny how you left that little tidbit out....

 

[320 Years of History]

The "uranium deal" of which you speak was one whereby a Russian organization sought to buy a Toronto,. CA company. The Canadian company owned uranium mines in the U.S. and in Kazakhstan. The U.S. government must approve the transaction because of the U.S. uranium mine's being part of the deal. That said, the Russian buyer cannot export uranium from the U.S. If one looks at a map, one will find that Kazakhstan shares a border with Russia. I don't know what rules there are about the export of uranium from Kazakhstan or what Kazakhstan's ability to enforce them is.

I see you neglected to add the part where the deal was going nowhere till a sizable brib....er "donation" was made to the clinton foundation by the owners of the companies. Funny how you left that little tidbit out....

Show me some proof -- original sources of information -- that the deal was "going nowhere" until the Clinton Foundation (CF) received specific donations from the owners of the companies.

• Proof of when the deal was demonstrably "dead" at a given point in time and that it's being "dead" was due to all of the nine organizations -- the Departments of Treasury, Defense, Homeland Security, State, Commerce and Energy, the attorney general, the White House, United States Trade Representative and the Office of Science and Technology Policy -- involved in the deal except for the Dept of State.
• Proof that the timing of the donations and the deal's resurrection and subsequent approval have a rationally foreseen temporal correlation.
  
• Proof that anyone other than the President of the United States had the authority to nix the deal. Or, more to your claim, that Mrs. Clinton had the authority to "greenlight" the deal above all other objections, including those of the President.
• Identification of the specific parties who you allege donated money to the CF and proof of how much they donated and when they donated it.
• Proof that any such donation clearly and singularly played a causal role in the deal's having been resurrected from a status of "going nowhere" once the donation(s) were made.
• Proof of some specific benefit Mrs. Clinton or her husband received personally as a consequence of any donation made to the Clinton Foundation by the parties to the uranium deal.

And good luck with that for even Peter Schweitzer, the author of Clinton Cash, admitted even he could not find evidence that tied Mrs. Clinton and the CF to the Uranium One deal. There's no shortage of innuendo about it, but there's not one bit of proof that something unsavory transpired.

 

[westwall]

The "uranium deal" of which you speak was one whereby a Russian organization sought to buy a Toronto,. CA company. The Canadian company owned uranium mines in the U.S. and in Kazakhstan. The U.S. government must approve the transaction because of the U.S. uranium mine's being part of the deal. That said, the Russian buyer cannot export uranium from the U.S. If one looks at a map, one will find that Kazakhstan shares a border with Russia. I don't know what rules there are about the export of uranium from Kazakhstan or what Kazakhstan's ability to enforce them is.

I see you neglected to add the part where the deal was going nowhere till a sizable brib....er "donation" was made to the clinton foundation by the owners of the companies. Funny how you left that little tidbit out....

Show me some proof -- original sources of information -- that the deal was "going nowhere" until the Clinton Foundation (CF) received specific donations from the owners of the companies.

• Proof of when the deal was demonstrably "dead" at a given point in time and that it's being "dead" was due to all of the nine organizations -- the Departments of Treasury, Defense, Homeland Security, State, Commerce and Energy, the attorney general, the White House, United States Trade Representative and the Office of Science and Technology Policy -- involved in the deal except for the Dept of State.
• Proof that the timing of the donations and the deal's resurrection and subsequent approval have a rationally foreseen temporal correlation.
  
• Proof that anyone other than the President of the United States had the authority to nix the deal. Or, more to your claim, that Mrs. Clinton had the authority to "greenlight" the deal above all other objections, including those of the President.
• Identification of the specific parties who you allege donated money to the CF and proof of how much they donated and when they donated it.
• Proof that any such donation clearly and singularly played a causal role in the deal's having been resurrected from a status of "going nowhere" once the donation(s) were made.
• Proof of some specific benefit Mrs. Clinton or her husband received personally as a consequence of any donation made to the Clinton Foundation by the parties to the uranium deal.

And good luck with that for even Peter Schweitzer, the author of Clinton Cash, admitted even he could not find evidence that tied Mrs. Clinton and the CF to the Uranium One deal. There's no shortage of innuendo about it, but there's not one bit of proof that something unsavory transpired.

You mean like these. And it appears your claim that Schweitzer wasn't able to find anything is wrong. How unsurprising.


The New York Times’s examination of the Uranium One deal is based on dozens of interviews, as well as a review of public records and securities filings in Canada,Russia and the United States. Some of the connections between Uranium One and the Clinton Foundation were unearthed by Peter Schweizer, a former fellow at the right-leaning Hoover Institution and author of the forthcoming book “Clinton Cash.” Mr. Schweizer provided a preview of material in the book to The Times, which scrutinized his information and built upon it with its own reporting.


Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation Amid Russian Uranium Deal

 

[Dana7360]

The media should ignore this GOP conspiracy because it's a lie which is probably why they stopped talking about it. Come on, you guys gotta make a better scandal than this. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission and 7 other agencies approved the sale and it never even reached her desk. She was not involved at all and only the president, at that point, could veto the deal which he didn't. And, she always had a history of opposing the sale of anything she considered US Critical Assets. If she had been part of it, I suspect she would have voted against it. Come on. Give us a REAL scandal. Not ones that can be so easily debunked. Unless you just can't find one. Which is probably the case. You guys are always on the up side of sickening.

https://www.treasury.gov/resource-c...oreign-investment/Documents/CFIUSGuidance.pdf

https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2008-11-21/pdf/E8-27525.pdf


Treasury Department, Dec. 8, 2008: Only the President has the authority to suspend or prohibit a covered transaction. Pursuant to section 6(c) of Executive Order 11858, CFIUS refers a covered transaction to the President if CFIUS or any member of CFIUS recommends suspension or prohibition of the transaction, or if CFIUS otherwise seeks a Presidential determination on the transaction.

Even the president cannot prohibit a transaction without “credible evidence” that the “foreign interest exercising control might take action that threatens to impair the national security,” according to the regulation.

----------------------

She did not have veto power and it never reached her desk.

Hey, have you guys ever heard of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The name of it gives a clue about what it does.

The entire made up scandal from Peter Schweizer's book: “Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich”

And he walks back his lies when challenged. Republicans do that a lot. Here is part of his interview:

SCHWEIZER: Yeah, what I meant by veto power was as we explain the process, you know, if somebody objects it kicks in the special investigation -- but veto is probably not the best word.

VETO IS PROBABLY NOT THE BEST WORD??????????

Clinton Cash Author Peter Schweizer Admits He's Wrong On Bogus Clinton "Veto Power" Claim

Another GOP scandal bites the dust. Their base is so fucking gullible. Seriously gullible. And I feel dirty for having to go look it up and finding out the truth. If one of you did that, I wouldn't have to.

The thing is, no matter how much honest facts are presented to some conservatives, they will repeat the lie until their last breath.

So many things they've said and claimed about the Clintons have been nothing but lies and conspiracies. The truth comes out and it's ignored.

Don't waste your time with stupid people.

 

[320 Years of History]

your claim that Schweitzer wasn't able to find anything is wrong.

What I said was, " Peter Schweitzer, the author of Clinton Cash, admitted even he could not find evidence that tied Mrs. Clinton and the CF to the Uranium One deal. and I linked to his specific remarks to that effect. I did not make a qualitative judgment call -- "right," "wrong," or otherwise -- about the nature of what Schweizer found or said. I made no claim that Schweizer found "nothing wrong" because I didn't need to, and I didn't need to because I was very specific in describing what Schweizer himself claimed he did and didn't find.

I have repeatedly asked you not to respond to my remarks and you just won't do it, will you? I have asked you to refrain from engaging with me because, quite frankly, I think you are too damned stupid/ignorant a person for me to have a conversation with. The fact that, as illustrated above, that you either cannot or will not accurately paraphrase me is just one reason. That you deigned further, as noted below, to refer to a NY Times article (dated 23-April-2015) on the matter when the content for that article is drawn from a book by Peter Schweizer who, on 26-April-2015, discussed the uranium deal in an ABC News interview that gives the "meat" to what wrote, is yet another reason I consider you too ignorant/stupid/lazy for me to have a conversation with. The example of your indolence insipidity that I've just highlighted is not the first time you'e exhibited that trait in discussions with me.

You mean like these. And it appears your claim that Schweitzer wasn't able to find anything is wrong. How unsurprising.

The New York Times’s examination of the Uranium One deal is based on dozens of interviews, as well as a review of public records and securities filings in Canada,Russia and the United States. Some of the connections between Uranium One and the Clinton Foundation were unearthed by Peter Schweizer, a former fellow at the right-leaning Hoover Institution and author of the forthcoming book “Clinton Cash.” Mr. Schweizer provided a preview of material in the book to The Times, which scrutinized his information and built upon it with its own reporting.


Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation Amid Russian Uranium Deal

I don't truly know whether you are stupid or whether you just feel obliged to say stupid things. Either way, I really just want you to stop responding to my posts. I don't want to have to upbraid you. I want to put you on my ignore list so we'd both be better off, but I can't do that with your ID for some ridiculous reason. I realize it's because you're a moderator. That we cannot ignore moderators is what's ridiculous.

 

[westwall]

your claim that Schweitzer wasn't able to find anything is wrong.

What I said was, " Peter Schweitzer, the author of Clinton Cash, admitted even he could not find evidence that tied Mrs. Clinton and the CF to the Uranium One deal. and I linked to his specific remarks to that effect. I did not make a qualitative judgment call -- "right," "wrong," or otherwise -- about the nature of what Schweizer found or said. I made no claim that Schweizer found "nothing wrong" because I didn't need to, and I didn't need to because I was very specific in describing what Schweizer himself claimed he did and didn't find.

I have repeatedly asked you not to respond to my remarks and you just won't do it, will you? I have asked you to refrain from engaging with me because, quite frankly, I think you are too damned stupid/ignorant a person for me to have a conversation with. The fact that, as illustrated above, that you either cannot or will not accurately paraphrase me is just one reason. That you deigned further, as noted below, to refer to a NY Times article (dated 23-April-2015) on the matter when the content for that article is drawn from a book by Peter Schweizer who, on 26-April-2015, discussed the uranium deal in an ABC News interview that gives the "meat" to what wrote, is yet another reason I consider you too ignorant/stupid/lazy for me to have a conversation with. The example of your indolence insipidity that I've just highlighted is not the first time you'e exhibited that trait in discussions with me.

You mean like these. And it appears your claim that Schweitzer wasn't able to find anything is wrong. How unsurprising.

The New York Times’s examination of the Uranium One deal is based on dozens of interviews, as well as a review of public records and securities filings in Canada,Russia and the United States. Some of the connections between Uranium One and the Clinton Foundation were unearthed by Peter Schweizer, a former fellow at the right-leaning Hoover Institution and author of the forthcoming book “Clinton Cash.” Mr. Schweizer provided a preview of material in the book to The Times, which scrutinized his information and built upon it with its own reporting.


Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation Amid Russian Uranium Deal

I don't truly know whether you are stupid or whether you just feel obliged to say stupid things. Either way, I really just want you to stop responding to my posts. I don't want to have to upbraid you. I want to put you on my ignore list so we'd both be better off, but I can't do that with your ID for some ridiculous reason. I realize it's because you're a moderator. That we cannot ignore moderators is what's ridiculous.

The only person exhibiting gross stupidity is you silly boy. I guess you missed this part... Highlighted for the dim of mind...

Mr. Schweizer provided a preview of material in the book to The Times, which scrutinized his information and built upon it with its own reporting.

 

[320 Years of History]

your claim that Schweitzer wasn't able to find anything is wrong.

What I said was, " Peter Schweitzer, the author of Clinton Cash, admitted even he could not find evidence that tied Mrs. Clinton and the CF to the Uranium One deal. and I linked to his specific remarks to that effect. I did not make a qualitative judgment call -- "right," "wrong," or otherwise -- about the nature of what Schweizer found or said. I made no claim that Schweizer found "nothing wrong" because I didn't need to, and I didn't need to because I was very specific in describing what Schweizer himself claimed he did and didn't find.

I have repeatedly asked you not to respond to my remarks and you just won't do it, will you? I have asked you to refrain from engaging with me because, quite frankly, I think you are too damned stupid/ignorant a person for me to have a conversation with. The fact that, as illustrated above, that you either cannot or will not accurately paraphrase me is just one reason. That you deigned further, as noted below, to refer to a NY Times article (dated 23-April-2015) on the matter when the content for that article is drawn from a book by Peter Schweizer who, on 26-April-2015, discussed the uranium deal in an ABC News interview that gives the "meat" to what wrote, is yet another reason I consider you too ignorant/stupid/lazy for me to have a conversation with. The example of your indolence insipidity that I've just highlighted is not the first time you'e exhibited that trait in discussions with me.

You mean like these. And it appears your claim that Schweitzer wasn't able to find anything is wrong. How unsurprising.

The New York Times’s examination of the Uranium One deal is based on dozens of interviews, as well as a review of public records and securities filings in Canada,Russia and the United States. Some of the connections between Uranium One and the Clinton Foundation were unearthed by Peter Schweizer, a former fellow at the right-leaning Hoover Institution and author of the forthcoming book “Clinton Cash.” Mr. Schweizer provided a preview of material in the book to The Times, which scrutinized his information and built upon it with its own reporting.

Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation Amid Russian Uranium Deal

I don't truly know whether you are stupid or whether you just feel obliged to say stupid things. Either way, I really just want you to stop responding to my posts. I don't want to have to upbraid you. I want to put you on my ignore list so we'd both be better off, but I can't do that with your ID for some ridiculous reason. I realize it's because you're a moderator. That we cannot ignore moderators is what's ridiculous.

The only person exhibiting gross stupidity is you silly boy. I guess you missed this part... Highlighted for the dim of mind...

Mr. Schweizer provided a preview of material in the book to The Times, which scrutinized his information and built upon it with its own reporting.

I suppose you stopped reading the article after the sentence above? What is the very next sentence in the article after the one you quote in blue above? This one: "Whether the donations played any role in the approval of the uranium deal is unknown."

As a reminder, what I requested was:

1. Proof of when the deal was demonstrably "dead" at a given point in time and that it's being "dead" was due to all of the nine organizations -- the Departments of Treasury, Defense, Homeland Security, State, Commerce and Energy, the attorney general, the White House, United States Trade Representative and the Office of Science and Technology Policy -- involved in the deal except for the Dept of State.
   
   I see no evidence of this in the article.
   
   
2. Proof that the timing of the donations and the deal's resurrection and subsequent approval have a rationally foreseen temporal correlation.
   
   I see no evidence of this in the article, because among other things, the article doesn't indicate the deal was ever "dead."
   
   
3. Proof that anyone other than the President of the United States had the authority to nix the deal. Or, more to your claim, that Mrs. Clinton had the authority to "greenlight" the deal above all other objections, including those of the President.
   
   I see no evidence of this in the article.
   
   
4. Identification of the specific parties who you allege donated money to the CF and proof of how much they donated and when they donated it.
   
   I see in the article that two individuals donated money to the CF. One person donated millions in 2005. One person began donating in 2007 and donated every year thereafter, except 2008, up to 2012, even though the deal received U.S. government approval in 2010.
   
   
5. Proof that any such donation clearly and singularly played a causal role in the deal's having been resurrected from a status of "going nowhere" once the donation(s) were made.
   
   I see no evidence of this in the article.
   
   
6. Proof of some specific benefit Mrs. Clinton or her husband received personally as a consequence of any donation made to the Clinton Foundation by the parties to the uranium deal.
   
   I see no evidence of this in the article.
   
   Indeed, I have yet to find anyone who's made a connection indicating that donations to the CF yield personal gain for the Clintons. I'm not taking about folks who can make innuendos for there's no paucity of that/them anywhere. I'm asking for something real, either a sound deductive argument, or a highly plausible and probable inductive one that cannot easily have holes poked in it. We are, after all, talking about a former First Lady, Senator and SecState, not some dude on parole following imprisonment for multiple counts of fraud or something like that.

The reasons for my "blue" comments just above derive directly from the article you provided. The relevant statements from the article are below. Before getting to the specifics of the article, let me point out that I think people do not pay close attention to the dates of things. I know you don't because that's very much part of the substance of what I ridiculed you about before. Keep that in mind as you look at the dates given or implied by the article you referenced. The dates don't align with the substance of an assertion that claims donations to the CF were for given in return for Mrs. Clinton's influence in pushing through the Uranium One deal. That's really clear from the notes from the article that I've shared below.

From the article you referenced:

• "[T]he ultimate authority to approve or reject the Russian acquisition rested with the cabinet officials on the foreign investment committee, including Mrs. Clinton — whose husband was collecting millions in donations from people associated with Uranium One."
  • The emboldened part of the sentence is broadly correct, but it also gives the tone of Mr. Clinton personally receiving money from the sums donated to the Clinton Foundation. That's just not the case. Looking at the CF's tax returns and annual reports, one finds that President Clinton and Chelsea Clinton, who serve on the Board of Directors, do not take a salary from the Clinton Foundation and receive no funding from it. Mrs. Clinton also did not take a salary when she served on the Board of Directors. None of them are beneficiaries of the charitable work the foundation does.
    
  • The remark has nothing to do with the Clinton Foundation.
• The article notes that "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." That was well before anyone could have anticipated Mrs. Clinton would be SecState.
• The article notes a donor named Frank Giustra who is a Canadian financier. Frank Giustra had an interest in Uranium One which, per the article, he sold in 2007. He donated ~$31M to the CF, again per the article, in 2005. Neither Mr. nor Mrs. Clinton held public office in 2005. The passage from the article says:
  
  "the company’s story was hardly front-page news in the United States — until [January] 2008, in the midst of Mrs. Clinton’s failed presidential campaign, 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." (Be sure to click on the link; the 2005 aspect is ambiguous until one reads that linked article.)
• The article notes that a Canadian named Telfer donated between $1.3M and $5.6M to the CF and the CF didn't report the donation.
  • The article provides substantiation for $1.3M. It doesn't come close to substantiating $5.6M.
  • The article also notes that Mr. Telfer began donating to the CF in 2007, well before there was any way to know Mrs. Clinton would be SecState and before the uranium deal was even thought of in anyone's mind. He donated again in 2009, 10, 11 and 12. Mrs. Clinton left office in 2013.
• The article notes that a Russian investment bank paid $500K in honoraria to Bill Clinton. It also implies that it paid Mr. Clinton's opposite number from the U.K. to do the same. I don't think this is indicative of anything because:
  • Bill Clinton wasn't in office in 2005
  • Both Clintons performed honorarium speeches for investment banks all over the world.
  • "Everybody knows everybody" in the leagues of I-banking CEOs and Western nation Presidents and former Presidents.
  • The nature of Russian politics and business is such that the government and business leaders are cozy just as they are in the U.S. Check out what the Import/Export Bank does and how cozy it is with U.S. producers and what the article says about the Kremlin and Uranium One won't seem at all surprising. The same thing goes on in Japan. Frankly all countries do it and it's really just a matter of how overtly or discreetly they do it. As goes the U.S. doing it, it comes down to what the U.S. press chooses to look into when someone in a Congressional office sends them a tip or two. (Both parties do it, and they both do it for the exact same reason: to gain political advantage.)
• The article notes that "Renaissance Capital would not comment on the genesis of Mr. Clinton’s speech." Well, that's no different than the speeches given to any other financial services industry. As has been noted by many folks, the FinSvcs industry is highly close-lipped about as much as it can be, routinely requiring NDAs. Hell, I've signed the damn things to bid on engagements with large FinSvcs institutions, and those situations were nothing other than I and my colleagues meeting with the company execs (not middle management) to tell them how we propose to run a project they want to undertake and that we haven't won the bid to do. So, there again, I don't see it as strange that "nobody's talking" about the speeches.
• In discussing whether the donations to the CF, or the other charity mentioned, were for the purpose of buying influence, the article notes that it's likely the donor do so hoping to obtain some degree of influence but, "whether it actually does [buy influence] is another question. And in this case, there were broader geopolitical pressures that likely came into play as the United States considered whether to approve the Rosatom-Uranium One deal."
• Someone mentioned the notion that the Uranium One deal was effectively dead and that Hillary Clinton "resurrected" it and made it happen as a result of donations to the CF. That's an incredibly specious accusation to make given that the article you've cited states:
  
  "n June 2010 Russia signed off on a United Nations resolution imposing tough new sanctions on [Iran]....Two months later, the deal giving ARMZ [the Russian buyer] a controlling stake in Uranium One was submitted to the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States for review...The deal was ultimately approved in October."
  
  So tell me, just how "dead in water" could the deal have been given that it took two months to get approved? I'm sorry, but I'm just not seeing that.
  [*]The article notes that were any of the nine agencies/departments that sit on the CFIUS to perceive a national security issue in connection with a deal the committee considered, it could take them straight to the President. The implication of that is that had Mrs. Clinton been a "roadblock" of sorts, an agency needed only have asserted "national security" and by doing so, she'd have been bypassed whether she liked it or not. Per the article, nobody did that even though they could.
  [*]The article includes the following correction:
  
  "An article on Friday about contributions to the Clinton Foundation from people associated with a Canadian uranium-mining company described incorrectly the foundation’s agreement with the Obama administration regarding foreign-government donations while Hillary Clinton was secretary of state. Under the agreement, the foundation would not accept new donations from foreign governments, though it could seek State Department waivers in specific cases. The foundation was not barred from accepting all foreign-government donations."
  
  
  [*]The article notes that in May of 2008, six months prior to Mrs. Clinton being tapped for SecState:
  
  Though the [NY Times] 2008 article [of January 2008] quoted the former head of Kazatomprom, Moukhtar Dzhakishev, as saying that the deal required government approval and was discussed at a dinner with the president, Mr. Giustra insisted that it was a private transaction, with no need for Mr. Clinton’s influence with Kazakh officials. He described his relationship with Mr. Clinton as motivated solely by a shared interest in philanthropy.
  
  As if to underscore the point, five months later [May 2008] Mr. Giustra held a fund-raiser for the Clinton Giustra Sustainable Growth Initiative, a project aimed at fostering progressive environmental and labor practices in the natural resources industry, to which he had pledged $100 million.
  
  

What the article does not identify as having happened at all:

• Meetings between Mrs. Clinton and Kazakh officials, which would have been a form of influence that was relevant for the deal.
• Meetings between Mrs. Clinton and Canadian officials to push the deal through.
• Meetings between Mrs. Clinton and the Russians to push the deal through.

At the end of the day, I see some uses for the article, but as a means by which one gives support to the assertion that "Hillary Clinton, in return for donations to the CF, used here influence as SecState to advance the approval of the Uranium One deal," it just doesn't do that in any convincing way, unless of course one is willing to accept mere innuendo as "proof."



Related to the point under discussion in this thread, but not to to the article:

• I think people in general think a public charity, which is what the Clinton Foundation is, is essentially the same thing as a company/corporation. I think that because many of the remarks I've seen folks make about the CF would make sense were the CF a company of any sort.
• I think people in general don't understand the difference between a private foundation, which is what the Trump Foundation is, and a public charity, which is what the CF is. I think that because it's an abstruse distinction that one has to go looking to discover and the implications wrought by the differences aren't patently obvious to non-tax attorneys/non-tax accountants, CPAs, CFPs or CFAs, (or something similar/relevant) for merely being able to say "one 's this and the other's that" doesn't even begin to cover the implications of the differences.

Unrelated to the point under discussion in this thread, but piquing my curiosity:

• The article notes:
  
  "In Wyoming, where Uranium One equipment is scattered across his 35,000-acre ranch, John Christensen is frustrated that repeated changes in corporate ownership over the years led to French, South African, Canadian and, finally, Russian control over mining rights on his property."
  
  
  • Why did John not buy the mining rights to his ranch? What was he thinking? Maybe he inherited the ranch and decided not to buy them or couldn't by the time he came into possession of the land?
  • Hopefully, at the very least, he has the right kind of easement that allows him to make money leasing parking space for the equipment that gets stored on his property.
    
• Are the authors of that article regular NY Times writers? Just wondering because the writing style doesn't seem characteristic of the Times.

 

[westwall]

your claim that Schweitzer wasn't able to find anything is wrong.

What I said was, " Peter Schweitzer, the author of Clinton Cash, admitted even he could not find evidence that tied Mrs. Clinton and the CF to the Uranium One deal. and I linked to his specific remarks to that effect. I did not make a qualitative judgment call -- "right," "wrong," or otherwise -- about the nature of what Schweizer found or said. I made no claim that Schweizer found "nothing wrong" because I didn't need to, and I didn't need to because I was very specific in describing what Schweizer himself claimed he did and didn't find.

I have repeatedly asked you not to respond to my remarks and you just won't do it, will you? I have asked you to refrain from engaging with me because, quite frankly, I think you are too damned stupid/ignorant a person for me to have a conversation with. The fact that, as illustrated above, that you either cannot or will not accurately paraphrase me is just one reason. That you deigned further, as noted below, to refer to a NY Times article (dated 23-April-2015) on the matter when the content for that article is drawn from a book by Peter Schweizer who, on 26-April-2015, discussed the uranium deal in an ABC News interview that gives the "meat" to what wrote, is yet another reason I consider you too ignorant/stupid/lazy for me to have a conversation with. The example of your indolence insipidity that I've just highlighted is not the first time you'e exhibited that trait in discussions with me.

You mean like these. And it appears your claim that Schweitzer wasn't able to find anything is wrong. How unsurprising.

The New York Times’s examination of the Uranium One deal is based on dozens of interviews, as well as a review of public records and securities filings in Canada,Russia and the United States. Some of the connections between Uranium One and the Clinton Foundation were unearthed by Peter Schweizer, a former fellow at the right-leaning Hoover Institution and author of the forthcoming book “Clinton Cash.” Mr. Schweizer provided a preview of material in the book to The Times, which scrutinized his information and built upon it with its own reporting.

Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation Amid Russian Uranium Deal

I don't truly know whether you are stupid or whether you just feel obliged to say stupid things. Either way, I really just want you to stop responding to my posts. I don't want to have to upbraid you. I want to put you on my ignore list so we'd both be better off, but I can't do that with your ID for some ridiculous reason. I realize it's because you're a moderator. That we cannot ignore moderators is what's ridiculous.

The only person exhibiting gross stupidity is you silly boy. I guess you missed this part... Highlighted for the dim of mind...

Mr. Schweizer provided a preview of material in the book to The Times, which scrutinized his information and built upon it with its own reporting.

I suppose you stopped reading the article after the sentence above? What is the very next sentence in the article after the one you quote in blue above? This one: "Whether the donations played any role in the approval of the uranium deal is unknown."

As a reminder, what I requested was:

1. Proof of when the deal was demonstrably "dead" at a given point in time and that it's being "dead" was due to all of the nine organizations -- the Departments of Treasury, Defense, Homeland Security, State, Commerce and Energy, the attorney general, the White House, United States Trade Representative and the Office of Science and Technology Policy -- involved in the deal except for the Dept of State.
   
   I see no evidence of this in the article.
   
   
2. Proof that the timing of the donations and the deal's resurrection and subsequent approval have a rationally foreseen temporal correlation.
   
   I see no evidence of this in the article, because among other things, the article doesn't indicate the deal was ever "dead."
   
   
3. Proof that anyone other than the President of the United States had the authority to nix the deal. Or, more to your claim, that Mrs. Clinton had the authority to "greenlight" the deal above all other objections, including those of the President.
   
   I see no evidence of this in the article.
   
   
4. Identification of the specific parties who you allege donated money to the CF and proof of how much they donated and when they donated it.
   
   I see in the article that two individuals donated money to the CF. One person donated millions in 2005. One person began donating in 2007 and donated every year thereafter, except 2008, up to 2012, even though the deal received U.S. government approval in 2010.
   
   
5. Proof that any such donation clearly and singularly played a causal role in the deal's having been resurrected from a status of "going nowhere" once the donation(s) were made.
   
   I see no evidence of this in the article.
   
   
6. Proof of some specific benefit Mrs. Clinton or her husband received personally as a consequence of any donation made to the Clinton Foundation by the parties to the uranium deal.
   
   I see no evidence of this in the article.
   
   Indeed, I have yet to find anyone who's made a connection indicating that donations to the CF yield personal gain for the Clintons. I'm not taking about folks who can make innuendos for there's no paucity of that/them anywhere. I'm asking for something real, either a sound deductive argument, or a highly plausible and probable inductive one that cannot easily have holes poked in it. We are, after all, talking about a former First Lady, Senator and SecState, not some dude on parole following imprisonment for multiple counts of fraud or something like that.

The reasons for my "blue" comments just above derive directly from the article you provided. The relevant statements from the article are below. Before getting to the specifics of the article, let me point out that I think people do not pay close attention to the dates of things. I know you don't because that's very much part of the substance of what I ridiculed you about before. Keep that in mind as you look at the dates given or implied by the article you referenced. The dates don't align with the substance of an assertion that claims donations to the CF were for given in return for Mrs. Clinton's influence in pushing through the Uranium One deal. That's really clear from the notes from the article that I've shared below.

From the article you referenced:

• "[T]he ultimate authority to approve or reject the Russian acquisition rested with the cabinet officials on the foreign investment committee, including Mrs. Clinton — whose husband was collecting millions in donations from people associated with Uranium One."
  • The emboldened part of the sentence is broadly correct, but it also gives the tone of Mr. Clinton personally receiving money from the sums donated to the Clinton Foundation. That's just not the case. Looking at the CF's tax returns and annual reports, one finds that President Clinton and Chelsea Clinton, who serve on the Board of Directors, do not take a salary from the Clinton Foundation and receive no funding from it. Mrs. Clinton also did not take a salary when she served on the Board of Directors. None of them are beneficiaries of the charitable work the foundation does.
    
  • The remark has nothing to do with the Clinton Foundation.
• The article notes that "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." That was well before anyone could have anticipated Mrs. Clinton would be SecState.
• The article notes a donor named Frank Giustra who is a Canadian financier. Frank Giustra had an interest in Uranium One which, per the article, he sold in 2007. He donated ~$31M to the CF, again per the article, in 2005. Neither Mr. nor Mrs. Clinton held public office in 2005. The passage from the article says:
  
  "the company’s story was hardly front-page news in the United States — until [January] 2008, in the midst of Mrs. Clinton’s failed presidential campaign, 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." (Be sure to click on the link; the 2005 aspect is ambiguous until one reads that linked article.)
• The article notes that a Canadian named Telfer donated between $1.3M and $5.6M to the CF and the CF didn't report the donation.
  • The article provides substantiation for $1.3M. It doesn't come close to substantiating $5.6M.
  • The article also notes that Mr. Telfer began donating to the CF in 2007, well before there was any way to know Mrs. Clinton would be SecState and before the uranium deal was even thought of in anyone's mind. He donated again in 2009, 10, 11 and 12. Mrs. Clinton left office in 2013.
• The article notes that a Russian investment bank paid $500K in honoraria to Bill Clinton. It also implies that it paid Mr. Clinton's opposite number from the U.K. to do the same. I don't think this is indicative of anything because:
  • Bill Clinton wasn't in office in 2005
  • Both Clintons performed honorarium speeches for investment banks all over the world.
  • "Everybody knows everybody" in the leagues of I-banking CEOs and Western nation Presidents and former Presidents.
  • The nature of Russian politics and business is such that the government and business leaders are cozy just as they are in the U.S. Check out what the Import/Export Bank does and how cozy it is with U.S. producers and what the article says about the Kremlin and Uranium One won't seem at all surprising. The same thing goes on in Japan. Frankly all countries do it and it's really just a matter of how overtly or discreetly they do it. As goes the U.S. doing it, it comes down to what the U.S. press chooses to look into when someone in a Congressional office sends them a tip or two. (Both parties do it, and they both do it for the exact same reason: to gain political advantage.)
• The article notes that "Renaissance Capital would not comment on the genesis of Mr. Clinton’s speech." Well, that's no different than the speeches given to any other financial services industry. As has been noted by many folks, the FinSvcs industry is highly close-lipped about as much as it can be, routinely requiring NDAs. Hell, I've signed the damn things to bid on engagements with large FinSvcs institutions, and those situations were nothing other than I and my colleagues meeting with the company execs (not middle management) to tell them how we propose to run a project they want to undertake and that we haven't won the bid to do. So, there again, I don't see it as strange that "nobody's talking" about the speeches.
• In discussing whether the donations to the CF, or the other charity mentioned, were for the purpose of buying influence, the article notes that it's likely the donor do so hoping to obtain some degree of influence but, "whether it actually does [buy influence] is another question. And in this case, there were broader geopolitical pressures that likely came into play as the United States considered whether to approve the Rosatom-Uranium One deal."
• Someone mentioned the notion that the Uranium One deal was effectively dead and that Hillary Clinton "resurrected" it and made it happen as a result of donations to the CF. That's an incredibly specious accusation to make given that the article you've cited states:
  
  "n June 2010 Russia signed off on a United Nations resolution imposing tough new sanctions on [Iran]....Two months later, the deal giving ARMZ [the Russian buyer] a controlling stake in Uranium One was submitted to the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States for review...The deal was ultimately approved in October."
  
  So tell me, just how "dead in water" could the deal have been given that it took two months to get approved? I'm sorry, but I'm just not seeing that.
  [*]The article notes that were any of the nine agencies/departments that sit on the CFIUS to perceive a national security issue in connection with a deal the committee considered, it could take them straight to the President. The implication of that is that had Mrs. Clinton been a "roadblock" of sorts, an agency needed only have asserted "national security" and by doing so, she'd have been bypassed whether she liked it or not. Per the article, nobody did that even though they could.
  [*]The article includes the following correction:
  
  "An article on Friday about contributions to the Clinton Foundation from people associated with a Canadian uranium-mining company described incorrectly the foundation’s agreement with the Obama administration regarding foreign-government donations while Hillary Clinton was secretary of state. Under the agreement, the foundation would not accept new donations from foreign governments, though it could seek State Department waivers in specific cases. The foundation was not barred from accepting all foreign-government donations."
  
  
  [*]The article notes that in May of 2008, six months prior to Mrs. Clinton being tapped for SecState:
  
  Though the [NY Times] 2008 article [of January 2008] quoted the former head of Kazatomprom, Moukhtar Dzhakishev, as saying that the deal required government approval and was discussed at a dinner with the president, Mr. Giustra insisted that it was a private transaction, with no need for Mr. Clinton’s influence with Kazakh officials. He described his relationship with Mr. Clinton as motivated solely by a shared interest in philanthropy.
  
  As if to underscore the point, five months later [May 2008] Mr. Giustra held a fund-raiser for the Clinton Giustra Sustainable Growth Initiative, a project aimed at fostering progressive environmental and labor practices in the natural resources industry, to which he had pledged $100 million.
  

What the article does not identify as having happened at all:

• 
  
  
  • Meetings between Mrs. Clinton and Kazakh officials, which would have been a form of influence that was relevant for the deal.
  • Meetings between Mrs. Clinton and Canadian officials to push the deal through.
  • Meetings between Mrs. Clinton and the Russians to push the deal through.

At the end of the day, I see some uses for the article, but as a means by which one gives support to the assertion that "Hillary Clinton, in return for donations to the CF, used here influence as SecState to advance the approval of the Uranium One deal," it just doesn't do that in any convincing way, unless of course one is willing to accept mere innuendo as "proof."



Related to the point under discussion in this thread, but not to to the article:

• 
  
  
  • I think people in general think a public charity, which is what the Clinton Foundation is, is essentially the same thing as a company/corporation. I think that because many of the remarks I've seen folks make about the CF would make sense were the CF a company of any sort.
  • I think people in general don't understand the difference between a private foundation, which is what the Trump Foundation is, and a public charity, which is what the CF is. I think that because it's an abstruse distinction that one has to go looking to discover and the implications wrought by the differences aren't patently obvious to non-tax attorneys/non-tax accountants, CPAs, CFPs or CFAs, (or something similar/relevant) for merely being able to say "one 's this and the other's that" doesn't even begin to cover the implications of the differences.

Unrelated to the point under discussion in this thread, but piquing my curiosity:

• 
  
  
  • The article notes:
    
    "In Wyoming, where Uranium One equipment is scattered across his 35,000-acre ranch, John Christensen is frustrated that repeated changes in corporate ownership over the years led to French, South African, Canadian and, finally, Russian control over mining rights on his property."
    
    • Why did John not buy the mining rights to his ranch? What was he thinking? Maybe he inherited the ranch and decided not to buy them or couldn't by the time he came into possession of the land?
    • Hopefully, at the very least, he has the right kind of easement that allows him to make money leasing parking space for the equipment that gets stored on his property.
  • Are the authors of that article regular NY Times writers? Just wondering because the writing style doesn't seem characteristic of the Times.

That's the thing with people like you. A person could be slugged on the street in front of you and if they were of the opposing party you would never see a thing.

 

[rdean]

Rudy was repeating this conspiracy on the news this morning. When he was told it wasn't true, he went ballistic.