So this is happening:

http://www.foxbusiness.com/features/2017/04/19/exxon-seeks-u-s-waiver-to-work...

How about that???  Coincidence?  No effing way.

pg wrote on 04/19/17 at 13:45:09:


Not enough care... I guess that's the problem.  

All tweety's followers seem to be happy to look the other way...  Meanwhile, tilly and tweety want a part of the half a trillion dollar deal with vlad.

Yeah, no big deal... right?

pg wrote on 04/19/17 at 13:55:24:


Because it's a non-issue that was cooked up by the paranoid right:

(from politifact)

The uranium deal

Before we get too far ahead of ourselves -- the United States gave a fifth of its uranium to Russia? What?

As for the transaction Trump alluded to, it involved the Russian nuclear agency and Uranium One, a Toronto-based company.

As PolitiFact National has reported, Russia’s nuclear energy agency, which also builds nuclear weapons, bought a controlling stake in Uranium One. The company has mines, mills and tracts of land in Wyoming, Utah and other U.S. states equal to about 20 percent of U.S. uranium production capacity.

So, to be clear, the 20 percent is capacity, not uranium that has been produced.

Given that Russia doesn’t have the licenses to export uranium outside the United States, it was likely more interested in Uranium One’s assets in Kazakhstan, the world’s largest uranium producer, our colleagues said.

As the New York Times has reported, the deal was made in separate transactions from 2009 to 2013. It made Russia’s atomic energy agency one of the world’s largest uranium producers and brought Russian President Vladimir Putin "closer to his goal of controlling much of the global uranium supply chain."

So, what was Clinton’s role?

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.

At the time, the United States was seeking to "reset" its relationship with Russia and trying to get the Kremlin on board with its Iran nuclear deal.

The national security issue at stake in the Uranium One deal was not primarily about nuclear weapons proliferation, the Times reported, because the United States and Russia had for years cooperated on that front, with Russia sending enriched fuel from decommissioned warheads to be used in American nuclear power plants in return for raw uranium.

Instead, it concerned American dependence on foreign uranium sources. While the United States gets one-fifth of its electrical power from nuclear plants, it produces only around 20 percent of the uranium it needs.

Trump’s previous claim on the topic, made in June 2016, was that Clinton’s State Department "approved the transfer of 20 percent of America’s uranium holdings to Russia, while nine investors in the deal funneled $145 million to the Clinton Foundation."

PolitiFact National rated it Mostly False -- mainly because there is no evidence of a quid pro quo.

The State Department did approve the Uranium One deal, but it didn’t act unilaterally. It was one of nine U.S. government agencies, plus independent federal and state nuclear regulators, that had to sign off on the deal.


It's as easy as that to respond..... Savvy?

Serowbot wrote on 04/19/17 at 14:25:14:


If you say so; however, the NY Times did a write up as well.

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-foundation-as-ru...

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 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.

Best regards,

WebsterMark wrote on 04/19/17 at 17:43:43:



So let me get this straight... you mean to tell me that the NYT was the only one to report on this and challenge tweety on his assertion?

Then by all means - prove my post about hillary and the uranium to be false.

justin_o_guy2 wrote on 04/20/17 at 07:07:47:



That's not at all how this played out.  Facts are facts - they don't care if you believe them or not.

The Earth is round - it just is.  There are some that don't believe it.  It doesn't make the Earth any less round.

How many hearings, how much scrutiny, how far does it need to go?  If she was so terribly guilty, what happened to tweety's promise to "lock her up"?  C'mon - there was more time spent on the Benghazi hearings (political witch hunt)  than on the actual 9/11 investigations!!

No smoking gun.... no intentional malice... nothing was found.  Don't you find it strange that there's been zero/zip/nada from the right about any further investigations on hillary, Benghazi, her emails, the clinton foundation, etc??

It's all just political BS.

I've criticized fairly, both sides.
You, not so much.

T And T Garage wrote on 04/20/17 at 08:53:47:


I like math because numbers don't lie.
1 + 1 = 2
I forget the expression Neil DeGrasse Tyson used, but to paraphrase, it just is.
It can be proven. By anyone.
Scientists work to create these theories and either prove or disprove them. Other scientists work to disprove others, or confirm their findings.
Galileo theorized the Earth was round. Later, it was directly observed.

So, some scientist comes by with this crazy theory. Let's call him "Al". He theorizes that energy is equal to mass times the speed of light in a vacuum, squared.

As we learn about our own environment, this theory proves true.

Quote:


So, this was a theory. It can be proved time and time again.

Where am I going with this?
Something stinks with Hillary and I can't prove or disprove it. I'm just supposed to rely on some "experts"?

Do you recall the campaign regarding pomegranate juice? Turns out it's fantastic for you, cures ED, boosts immunity, heart disease.
This was a campaign launched by Pom, a company that markets and sells pomegranate juice.
Little biased, no?
I'll go one further... now that time has elapsed, independent studies have been performed.

Quote:

https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/pom-not-so-wonderful/

So, I'm supposed to just blatantly accept that she's clean because someone else says so, with no verification of my own?

Facts are facts, as you say. I guess if it's on the Internet it must be true.


--Steve