You mean uranium one is BS

Your Virginia Tech Politics and Religion source
Forum rules
Be Civil. Go Hokies.
cwtcr hokie
Posts: 13399
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 1:25 pm

Re: You mean uranium one is BS

Post by cwtcr hokie »

HokieJoe wrote:
HokieFanDC wrote:
HokieJoe wrote:
ip_law-hokie wrote:
cwtcr hokie wrote:
TheH2 wrote:I'm shocked. Shep Smith no less, he's better than this.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/mor ... 3f84234427

I've got to stop getting my news from UWS. Well ok, it's just this once. I'm back and all-in on UWS news.
Many strange things happened under the 8 years of Obummer, but you think that this deal was 100% legit....you should get cattle future contracts from Thunder thighs then. And you trust the various Obummer depts even though more and more info is coming out about how corrupt the whole joint was.... ok
So let's unpack this. Per you, many strange things, unrelated to this, happened under Obummer. This leads you to believe this is crooked, despite direct evidence to the contrary. Thunder thighs.

But when an Alabama congressman get accussed of finger banging a 14 year old, and there are other strange things, but admitted to, and very much related to the matter, this leads you to suspend judgment.

Seems a little inconsistent.

your arguments made a smidge of sense until the article upstate posted shredded what the fox news guy said on tv. Wow....yep clean as a whistle....per the article not even close but who cares, it thunder thighs, she has lived her life off of us and been corrupt since arkansas
You don't think it strange that we gave the Russians mining rights control to 20% of our uranium ore (which is a strategic asset)?

Keep on running with that ip. Sounds like a winner.
What rights do you think Russia has?

The US subsidiary of Uranium One holds a license to mine a certain amount of ISR production capacity. It's not 20% of US uranium. It's not even 20% of US uranium mining capacity. And it can't be exported to Russia, because they don't hold an export license. In 2016, they mined about 2% of all US production.
Except some of it has been exported to our friends. Seriously, anyone who defends this goddam bullshit should just be quiet. Rosatom should have 0% stake in our uranium assets.
Russia has a ton of uranium that can be mined in their own country. Uranium is a commodity and Russia can buy and sell it (see Canada).[/quote]
TheH2
Posts: 3168
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 1:06 pm

Re: You mean uranium one is BS

Post by TheH2 »

awesome guy wrote:
TheH2 wrote:
133743Hokie wrote:
RiverguyVT wrote:
TheH2 wrote:
awesome guy wrote:It's hilarious watching you try and spin out of this. You're a fool that no speakith gooderly, all the while insulting me and others as having comprehension issues. So much hate and silliness.
She was not on the committee for the State Department. Even if she was, she COULD NOT HAVE APPROVED OR STOPPED THE SALE. That's all that matters.

That's not true at all, H2.
Not even close to being true.
It does sound like any one of the participating organizations could have killed the approval, and that there is precedent for it having happened before. So the question is why didn't any of the entities veto it? Further, with the FBI aware of he Russia scheming as reported by the informant, why wasn't this grounds for killing the deal?
What was the national security threat?
Put on your thinking cap, why would a nation want to keep control over it's own uranium ore? And why would a nation not want it's Secretary of State taking bribes?
Because we can buy uranium and have plenty of other sources of uranium. It's a commodity. There is no shortage. There a mines everywhere, including one of our closest allies we share a border with. So, please, where is the national security threat. Put on your thinking cap. Why would a nation not export commodities, or a very small portion of uranium? This goes for oil and gas too.
People who know, know.
User avatar
awesome guy
Posts: 54187
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 7:10 pm
Party: After 10
Location: Plastic Flotilla:Location Classified

Re: You mean uranium one is BS

Post by awesome guy »

TheH2 wrote:
awesome guy wrote:
TheH2 wrote:
133743Hokie wrote:
RiverguyVT wrote:
TheH2 wrote: She was not on the committee for the State Department. Even if she was, she COULD NOT HAVE APPROVED OR STOPPED THE SALE. That's all that matters.

That's not true at all, H2.
Not even close to being true.
It does sound like any one of the participating organizations could have killed the approval, and that there is precedent for it having happened before. So the question is why didn't any of the entities veto it? Further, with the FBI aware of he Russia scheming as reported by the informant, why wasn't this grounds for killing the deal?
What was the national security threat?
Put on your thinking cap, why would a nation want to keep control over it's own uranium ore? And why would a nation not want it's Secretary of State taking bribes?
Because we can buy uranium and have plenty of other sources of uranium. It's a commodity. There is no shortage. There a mines everywhere, including one of our closest allies we share a border with. So, please, where is the national security threat. Put on your thinking cap. Why would a nation not export commodities, or a very small portion of uranium? This goes for oil and gas too.
I'm the only one thinking here. Put on your thinking cap, what happens to access to foreign sources when war breaks out?

It's curious how you also keep avoiding the corrupcorruption of the deal, like you're just a lemming.
Unvaccinated,. mask free, and still alive.
TheH2
Posts: 3168
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 1:06 pm

Re: You mean uranium one is BS

Post by TheH2 »

awesome guy wrote:I'm the only one thinking here. Put on your thinking cap, what happens to access to foreign sources when war breaks out?

It's curious how you also keep avoiding the corrupcorruption of the deal, like you're just a lemming.
You're not thinking at all. If you were thinking you would look up U.S. uranium mines and see, wow, we have plenty of uranium. Also, the foreign source is Canada. It won't be hard. Or, if we really thought Canada would stop selling us uranium, and we couldn't mine it, we'd start stockpiling. I'm an idiot right, and even I can come to that conclusion. This isn't an issue.

What corruption. There was no reason to stop the deal. There was no reason for corruption.
People who know, know.
User avatar
awesome guy
Posts: 54187
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 7:10 pm
Party: After 10
Location: Plastic Flotilla:Location Classified

Re: You mean uranium one is BS

Post by awesome guy »

TheH2 wrote:
awesome guy wrote:I'm the only one thinking here. Put on your thinking cap, what happens to access to foreign sources when war breaks out?

It's curious how you also keep avoiding the corrupcorruption of the deal, like you're just a lemming.
You're not thinking at all. If you were thinking you would look up U.S. uranium mines and see, wow, we have plenty of uranium. Also, the foreign source is Canada. It won't be hard. Or, if we really thought Canada would stop selling us uranium, and we couldn't mine it, we'd start stockpiling. I'm an idiot right, and even I can come to that conclusion. This isn't an issue.

What corruption. There was no reason to stop the deal. There was no reason for corruption.
I'm the only one thinking or if you are thinking then you're simply atrocious at it. I'm not repeating why your idea is dumb. It's hilarious how you're poor thinking can't let you see the corruption either. You're comically retarded.
Unvaccinated,. mask free, and still alive.
User avatar
RiverguyVT
Posts: 30268
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:30 pm

Re: You mean uranium one is BS

Post by RiverguyVT »

TheH2 wrote:
RiverguyVT wrote:
TheH2 wrote:I'm shocked. Shep Smith no less, he's better than this.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/mor ... 3f84234427

I've got to stop getting my news from UWS. Well ok, it's just this once. I'm back and all-in on UWS news.
BS how, exactly?
BS as a national security threat, or BS as a matter of corruption? If you're denying corruption, you are ignoring quite a bit.

As for the CFIUS, do you really think Clinton & Obama don't get acquiescence if they wanted it? Reeeeally?

I couldn't read your article, as it is pay-walled.

Here are some reasonable pieces, IMHO:

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/45 ... l-security

http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/268169/ ... greenfield
Was it a national security threat, no. Given 1, was there a reason to stop the deal? If there is no reason to stop the deal then there is no reason for Clinton's involvement. The eye popping $145 million is wrong too. There is about as much there as the staffer being killed by Clinton. Even Sessions says there is nothing there. Sorry, I want to believe UWS news, it's been so accurate, but this one doesn't hold water.
So, you're saying no money changed hands? LOL.

I'm out. You've gone full Hillary! on this. :roll:
TheH2
Posts: 3168
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 1:06 pm

Re: You mean uranium one is BS

Post by TheH2 »

awesome guy wrote:
TheH2 wrote:
awesome guy wrote:I'm the only one thinking here. Put on your thinking cap, what happens to access to foreign sources when war breaks out?

It's curious how you also keep avoiding the corrupcorruption of the deal, like you're just a lemming.
You're not thinking at all. If you were thinking you would look up U.S. uranium mines and see, wow, we have plenty of uranium. Also, the foreign source is Canada. It won't be hard. Or, if we really thought Canada would stop selling us uranium, and we couldn't mine it, we'd start stockpiling. I'm an idiot right, and even I can come to that conclusion. This isn't an issue.

What corruption. There was no reason to stop the deal. There was no reason for corruption.
I'm the only one thinking or if you are thinking then you're simply atrocious at it. I'm not repeating why your idea is dumb. It's hilarious how you're poor thinking can't let you see the corruption either. You're comically retarded.
I speak AG. Translation: I can add nothing to the thread but I like to say crap to make me feel good, winning! An insult will do.

You have lots of thoughts/ideas. You can never back up your thoughts/ideas with reason or fact. You can insult posters all you want, but it's a you problem, not a me problem. I think you're just trying to keep a persona. I'm guessing the real AG can reason.
People who know, know.
Mcl3 Hokie
Posts: 1477
Joined: Sun Aug 25, 2013 2:50 pm

Re: You mean uranium one is BS

Post by Mcl3 Hokie »

So, why was Russia using bribes and kickbacks to infiltrate the uranium ore business in the US if its so plentiful? It doesn't add up.
TheH2 wrote:
awesome guy wrote:I'm the only one thinking here. Put on your thinking cap, what happens to access to foreign sources when war breaks out?

It's curious how you also keep avoiding the corrupcorruption of the deal, like you're just a lemming.
You're not thinking at all. If you were thinking you would look up U.S. uranium mines and see, wow, we have plenty of uranium. Also, the foreign source is Canada. It won't be hard. Or, if we really thought Canada would stop selling us uranium, and we couldn't mine it, we'd start stockpiling. I'm an idiot right, and even I can come to that conclusion. This isn't an issue.

What corruption. There was no reason to stop the deal. There was no reason for corruption.
TheH2
Posts: 3168
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 1:06 pm

Re: You mean uranium one is BS

Post by TheH2 »

RiverguyVT wrote:
TheH2 wrote:
RiverguyVT wrote:
TheH2 wrote:I'm shocked. Shep Smith no less, he's better than this.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/mor ... 3f84234427

I've got to stop getting my news from UWS. Well ok, it's just this once. I'm back and all-in on UWS news.
BS how, exactly?
BS as a national security threat, or BS as a matter of corruption? If you're denying corruption, you are ignoring quite a bit.

As for the CFIUS, do you really think Clinton & Obama don't get acquiescence if they wanted it? Reeeeally?

I couldn't read your article, as it is pay-walled.

Here are some reasonable pieces, IMHO:

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/45 ... l-security

http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/268169/ ... greenfield
Was it a national security threat, no. Given 1, was there a reason to stop the deal? If there is no reason to stop the deal then there is no reason for Clinton's involvement. The eye popping $145 million is wrong too. There is about as much there as the staffer being killed by Clinton. Even Sessions says there is nothing there. Sorry, I want to believe UWS news, it's been so accurate, but this one doesn't hold water.
So, you're saying no money changed hands? LOL.

I'm out. You've gone full Hillary! on this. :roll:
Where did I say no money changed hands. Please don't be them. I only said the the "facts" aren't facts. Let's just rehash a bit:

9 agencies in total approved this.
Why would this be blocked? Where is the national security threat?
Do we have plenty of mines in the US? Yes
Do we have access to uranium? Yes
Is uranium a commodity? Yes
People who know, know.
User avatar
awesome guy
Posts: 54187
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 7:10 pm
Party: After 10
Location: Plastic Flotilla:Location Classified

Re: You mean uranium one is BS

Post by awesome guy »

Mcl3 Hokie wrote:So, why was Russia using bribes and kickbacks to infiltrate the uranium ore business in the US if its so plentiful? It doesn't add up.
TheH2 wrote:
awesome guy wrote:I'm the only one thinking here. Put on your thinking cap, what happens to access to foreign sources when war breaks out?

It's curious how you also keep avoiding the corrupcorruption of the deal, like you're just a lemming.
You're not thinking at all. If you were thinking you would look up U.S. uranium mines and see, wow, we have plenty of uranium. Also, the foreign source is Canada. It won't be hard. Or, if we really thought Canada would stop selling us uranium, and we couldn't mine it, we'd start stockpiling. I'm an idiot right, and even I can come to that conclusion. This isn't an issue.

What corruption. There was no reason to stop the deal. There was no reason for corruption.
Don't hold your breath expecting an intelligent or factual response from him.
Unvaccinated,. mask free, and still alive.
TheH2
Posts: 3168
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 1:06 pm

Re: You mean uranium one is BS

Post by TheH2 »

Mcl3 Hokie wrote:So, why was Russia using bribes and kickbacks to infiltrate the uranium ore business in the US if its so plentiful? It doesn't add up.
Which bribes?

The uranium business in the U.S. isn't plentiful. We have plenty of mines we just don't produce much (see commodity prices). Canada is where it's at, and apparently Australia but I don't know much about the Australian market.

It does seem like good business to purchase uranium assets when prices are low, historically. Buy low/sell high. Who knows if it is anywhere near a bottom.
People who know, know.
User avatar
RiverguyVT
Posts: 30268
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:30 pm

Re: You mean uranium one is BS

Post by RiverguyVT »

TheH2 wrote:
RiverguyVT wrote:
TheH2 wrote:
RiverguyVT wrote:
TheH2 wrote:I'm shocked. Shep Smith no less, he's better than this.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/mor ... 3f84234427

I've got to stop getting my news from UWS. Well ok, it's just this once. I'm back and all-in on UWS news.
BS how, exactly?
BS as a national security threat, or BS as a matter of corruption? If you're denying corruption, you are ignoring quite a bit.

As for the CFIUS, do you really think Clinton & Obama don't get acquiescence if they wanted it? Reeeeally?

I couldn't read your article, as it is pay-walled.

Here are some reasonable pieces, IMHO:

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/45 ... l-security

http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/268169/ ... greenfield
Was it a national security threat, no. Given 1, was there a reason to stop the deal? If there is no reason to stop the deal then there is no reason for Clinton's involvement. The eye popping $145 million is wrong too. There is about as much there as the staffer being killed by Clinton. Even Sessions says there is nothing there. Sorry, I want to believe UWS news, it's been so accurate, but this one doesn't hold water.
So, you're saying no money changed hands? LOL.

I'm out. You've gone full Hillary! on this. :roll:
Where did I say no money changed hands. Please don't be them. I only said the the "facts" aren't facts. Let's just rehash a bit:

9 agencies in total approved this.
Why would this be blocked? Where is the national security threat?
Do we have plenty of mines in the US? Yes
Do we have access to uranium? Yes
Is uranium a commodity? Yes
I highlighted your quote. It was pretty clear. Now you're running from it.
So I put (the dead dog) on her doorstep!
Salute the Marines
Soon we'll have planes that fly 22000 mph
"#PedoPete" = Hunter's name for his dad.
User avatar
RiverguyVT
Posts: 30268
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:30 pm

Re: You mean uranium one is BS

Post by RiverguyVT »

awesome guy wrote:
Mcl3 Hokie wrote:So, why was Russia using bribes and kickbacks to infiltrate the uranium ore business in the US if its so plentiful? It doesn't add up.
TheH2 wrote:
awesome guy wrote:I'm the only one thinking here. Put on your thinking cap, what happens to access to foreign sources when war breaks out?

It's curious how you also keep avoiding the corrupcorruption of the deal, like you're just a lemming.
You're not thinking at all. If you were thinking you would look up U.S. uranium mines and see, wow, we have plenty of uranium. Also, the foreign source is Canada. It won't be hard. Or, if we really thought Canada would stop selling us uranium, and we couldn't mine it, we'd start stockpiling. I'm an idiot right, and even I can come to that conclusion. This isn't an issue.

What corruption. There was no reason to stop the deal. There was no reason for corruption.
Don't hold your breath expecting an intelligent or factual response from him.
I usually think H2 is well thought out. On this? What's that line from Tropic Thunder?
He's not being self honest in this thread at all. Why, I have no idea.
So I put (the dead dog) on her doorstep!
Salute the Marines
Soon we'll have planes that fly 22000 mph
"#PedoPete" = Hunter's name for his dad.
TheH2
Posts: 3168
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 1:06 pm

Re: You mean uranium one is BS

Post by TheH2 »

RiverguyVT wrote:
TheH2 wrote:
RiverguyVT wrote:
TheH2 wrote:
RiverguyVT wrote:
TheH2 wrote:I'm shocked. Shep Smith no less, he's better than this.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/mor ... 3f84234427

I've got to stop getting my news from UWS. Well ok, it's just this once. I'm back and all-in on UWS news.
BS how, exactly?
BS as a national security threat, or BS as a matter of corruption? If you're denying corruption, you are ignoring quite a bit.

As for the CFIUS, do you really think Clinton & Obama don't get acquiescence if they wanted it? Reeeeally?

I couldn't read your article, as it is pay-walled.

Here are some reasonable pieces, IMHO:

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/45 ... l-security

http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/268169/ ... greenfield
Was it a national security threat, no. Given 1, was there a reason to stop the deal? If there is no reason to stop the deal then there is no reason for Clinton's involvement. The eye popping $145 million is wrong too. There is about as much there as the staffer being killed by Clinton. Even Sessions says there is nothing there. Sorry, I want to believe UWS news, it's been so accurate, but this one doesn't hold water.
So, you're saying no money changed hands? LOL.

I'm out. You've gone full Hillary! on this. :roll:
Where did I say no money changed hands. Please don't be them. I only said the the "facts" aren't facts. Let's just rehash a bit:

9 agencies in total approved this.
Why would this be blocked? Where is the national security threat?
Do we have plenty of mines in the US? Yes
Do we have access to uranium? Yes
Is uranium a commodity? Yes
I highlighted your quote. It was pretty clear. Now you're running from it.
I said the $145 million number was wrong. It's poor reading comprehension to conclude no money changed hands from that.

Example:
"You paid $5 for a milkshake?"
"I did not pay $5 for a milkshake." That doesn't mean I paid no money for a milkshake, just not $5.

Edit: I stand by my quote because it is 100% true. Your interpretation of my quote is what I don't stand by.
People who know, know.
HokieJoe
Posts: 13123
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 2:12 pm
Alma Mater: Virginia Tech
Party: Eclectic

Re: You mean uranium one is BS

Post by HokieJoe »

TheH2 wrote:
awesome guy wrote:I'm the only one thinking here. Put on your thinking cap, what happens to access to foreign sources when war breaks out?

It's curious how you also keep avoiding the corrupcorruption of the deal, like you're just a lemming.
You're not thinking at all. If you were thinking you would look up U.S. uranium mines and see, wow, we have plenty of uranium. Also, the foreign source is Canada. It won't be hard. Or, if we really thought Canada would stop selling us uranium, and we couldn't mine it, we'd start stockpiling. I'm an idiot right, and even I can come to that conclusion. This isn't an issue.

What corruption. There was no reason to stop the deal. There was no reason for corruption.
I was thinking daft, but okay.
"I predict future happiness for Americans, if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them." - Thomas Jefferson
TheH2
Posts: 3168
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 1:06 pm

Re: You mean uranium one is BS

Post by TheH2 »

HokieJoe wrote:
TheH2 wrote:
awesome guy wrote:I'm the only one thinking here. Put on your thinking cap, what happens to access to foreign sources when war breaks out?

It's curious how you also keep avoiding the corrupcorruption of the deal, like you're just a lemming.
You're not thinking at all. If you were thinking you would look up U.S. uranium mines and see, wow, we have plenty of uranium. Also, the foreign source is Canada. It won't be hard. Or, if we really thought Canada would stop selling us uranium, and we couldn't mine it, we'd start stockpiling. I'm an idiot right, and even I can come to that conclusion. This isn't an issue.

What corruption. There was no reason to stop the deal. There was no reason for corruption.
I was thinking daft, but okay.
Moving on up.....
People who know, know.
User avatar
RiverguyVT
Posts: 30268
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:30 pm

Re: You mean uranium one is BS

Post by RiverguyVT »

So your quibble is with the amount, not that money didn't trade hands?
I don't care if it was 1/100th that amount.
It is corruption
Period.
So I put (the dead dog) on her doorstep!
Salute the Marines
Soon we'll have planes that fly 22000 mph
"#PedoPete" = Hunter's name for his dad.
User avatar
awesome guy
Posts: 54187
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 7:10 pm
Party: After 10
Location: Plastic Flotilla:Location Classified

Re: You mean uranium one is BS

Post by awesome guy »

RiverguyVT wrote:So your quibble is with the amount, not that money didn't trade hands?
I don't care if it was 1/100th that amount.
It is corruption
Period.
He's even sillier than that claiming that since there's a healthy commodity market for uranium then there was no reason for a bribe so therefore none took place. He's ignorant about the amount paid too and flat out laughable in his denial.
Unvaccinated,. mask free, and still alive.
TheH2
Posts: 3168
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 1:06 pm

Re: You mean uranium one is BS

Post by TheH2 »

RiverguyVT wrote:So your quibble is with the amount, not that money didn't trade hands?
I don't care if it was 1/100th that amount.
It is corruption
Period.
Ok. Corruption it is. What evidence is there that she discussed this with the eight other departments? What is the rational reason this transaction should not have been approved? Given number two, this doesn't look fishy to me. Regardless, let's ignore the fact that there is no reason it shouldn't be approved. Where is the evidence that she orchestrated the transaction. There's got to be emails right.
People who know, know.
133743Hokie
Posts: 11220
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 12:29 am

Re: You mean uranium one is BS

Post by 133743Hokie »

TheH2 wrote:
133743Hokie wrote:
RiverguyVT wrote:
TheH2 wrote:
awesome guy wrote:It's hilarious watching you try and spin out of this. You're a fool that no speakith gooderly, all the while insulting me and others as having comprehension issues. So much hate and silliness.
She was not on the committee for the State Department. Even if she was, she COULD NOT HAVE APPROVED OR STOPPED THE SALE. That's all that matters.

That's not true at all, H2.
Not even close to being true.
It does sound like any one of the participating organizations could have killed the approval, and that there is precedent for it having happened before. So the question is why didn't any of the entities veto it? Further, with the FBI aware of he Russia scheming as reported by the informant, why wasn't this grounds for killing the deal?
What was the national security threat?
Russian activity to corner the uranium market. They had already acquired large stakes in Kazakhstan and Australia. The FBI informants info on this was made known prior to the vote.
TheH2
Posts: 3168
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 1:06 pm

Re: You mean uranium one is BS

Post by TheH2 »

133743Hokie wrote:
TheH2 wrote:
133743Hokie wrote:
RiverguyVT wrote:
TheH2 wrote:
awesome guy wrote:It's hilarious watching you try and spin out of this. You're a fool that no speakith gooderly, all the while insulting me and others as having comprehension issues. So much hate and silliness.
She was not on the committee for the State Department. Even if she was, she COULD NOT HAVE APPROVED OR STOPPED THE SALE. That's all that matters.

That's not true at all, H2.
Not even close to being true.
It does sound like any one of the participating organizations could have killed the approval, and that there is precedent for it having happened before. So the question is why didn't any of the entities veto it? Further, with the FBI aware of he Russia scheming as reported by the informant, why wasn't this grounds for killing the deal?
What was the national security threat?
Russian activity to corner the uranium market. They had already acquired large stakes in Kazakhstan and Australia. The FBI informants info on this was made known prior to the vote.
But they're not close. Maybe the FBI informants mentioned this (link?)? We still have uranium in the U.S., there is still plenty of uranium in Canada we can access. I don't know how much uranium Australia has.
People who know, know.
HokieJoe
Posts: 13123
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 2:12 pm
Alma Mater: Virginia Tech
Party: Eclectic

Re: You mean uranium one is BS

Post by HokieJoe »

TheH2 wrote: But they're not close. Maybe the FBI informants mentioned this (link?)? We still have uranium in the U.S., there is still plenty of uranium in Canada we can access. I don't know how much uranium Australia has.
:roll:

We should let Russia have it. It's a commodity! Like going to the farmers market and buying yellow cake.
"I predict future happiness for Americans, if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them." - Thomas Jefferson
HokieJoe
Posts: 13123
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 2:12 pm
Alma Mater: Virginia Tech
Party: Eclectic

Re: You mean uranium one is BS

Post by HokieJoe »

UpstateSCHokie wrote:Shep Smith could not even pronounce the names of those involved correctly. That guy has no credibility. Fox should have sent him packing years ago. He's nothing more than another unhinged Trump hater.

===========================================================


FACT-CHECK: Shep Smith’s Fake ‘Debunking’ of Uranium One Story Ends in Humiliation, Embarrassment
by Jerome Hudson15 Nov 20178,443

Fox News’ Shepard Smith drew applause from liberal media outlets Tuesday in a “fact check” marred with mispronunciations and misrepresentations.

Smith, one of Fox’s top liberals and who frequently opposes the network’s narratives, spoke at length on his show Shepard Smith Reports after Attorney General Jeff Sessions floated the idea of a special counsel to investigate recent revelations surrounding the 2010 partial sale of Canadian firm Uranium One to Russian energy giant Rosatom. The sale was approved by the Obama administration as it included the sale of 20 percent of U.S. uranium to the Russian giant.

In laying out the widely reported story, Smith mispronounced the name of the Canadian investor at the center of the scandal (calling him ‘Gweh-strah,’ then ‘Gwy-strah’ instead of the correct ‘Joo-strah’); the name of the government body that reviewed the deal (‘Si-fuhs’ instead of the correct ‘Sif-ee-us); and the name of a senior State Department official involved in the review (‘Fernando’ instead of the accurate ‘Fernandez’). Smith also incorrectly describes Uranium One is a South African company. It was Canadian and is now, in fact, a Russian state-owned company.

The details of the Uranium One story have received broad coverage from outlets such as the New York Times and considerable attention on Fox News, including a one-hour special hosted by Bret Baier which aired in 2015 on the release of the book Clinton Cash.

Among the many things Smith objected to was Clinton’s ability to influence the deal’s approval. “The Clinton State Department had no power to approve or veto that transaction. It could do neither,” he said.

He correctly states that it was CFIUS — the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States — that made the decision. CFIUS is a cabinet-level committee consisting of representatives from several Departments and Agencies, including the Secretaries of the Treasury, State, Defense, etc. Smith claims that State was only one member and that the real decision was the President’s. However, Smith’s claim is misleading. While the final decision technically rests with the White House, CFIUS traditionally, and as far as is publicly known, operates by unanimous consent. Crucially, any one member can block a transaction. Such a “veto” can only be undone by the President, though there is no known case of the President overruling CFIUS since the committee was set up in 1975. In short, the Clinton State Department had the power to effectively gut the deal.

Hillary Clinton, in particular, has a history of resisting these sorts of deals. In one high profile case, a Dubai-based company withdrew from a deal that would put it in charge of several major US ports after a major public outcry. Then-Senator Hillary Clinton was an outspoken critic of the deal and went so far as to co-author a bill blocking the sale. In the case of Uranium One, an objection from a sitting committee member would have been crippling for the deal.

It is only by ignoring this de facto veto that Smith can dismiss Clinton’s role in the approval. Of course, his overall point that her corruption is somehow less severe because she was only one vote is irrelevant to the allegation being made. The particular circumstances of the decision are irrelevant — bribery statutes apply no matter how close the vote.

Smith also claims that the majority of the donations to the Clinton Foundation came via Frank Giustra — a mining financier who sold his stake in the uranium company before it was sold and before Clinton became secretary of State. “The timing is inaccurate,” Smith complains.

But it is Smith who is being inaccurate. As noted in Clinton Cash and the New York Times, the Clintons helped Giustra acquire Kazakh uranium assets in 2005. Mukhtar Dzhakishev, then head of the Kazakh state nuclear agency, who met with the Clintons in Chappaqua, declared in 2010 that Hillary Clinton extorted and pressured Kazakh officials to grant those uranium concessions to Giustra. Shortly after they granted those concessions, $30 million was dropped into Clinton Foundation coffers by Giustra.

Smith never mentions any of this.


“The timing is inaccurate” only if you exclude key events.

Smith also fails to account for the fact that Uranium One’s Chairman Ian Telfer moved $2.3 million, much it undisclosed, to the Clinton Foundation as the deal was being reviewed by CFIUS. Furthermore, Smith falsely claims that the Clinton Foundation disclosed these donations to the charity but simply forgot to reveal the individual names of the donors. This is entirely false.

But Smith is not done excluding key facts which confirm the timing of funds flowing to the Clintons. Smith also strangely omits the $500,000 speaking fee Bill Clinton was paid by a Russian bank involved with Uranium One during the review process.

So, was Hillary Clinton involved in the Uranium One CFIUS review? Smith says we can take her word that she wasn’t and then trots out former Assistant Secretary of State Fernandez to say her hands are clean. Smith never bothers to describe to his audience who Fernandez actually is. A quick search of the Podesta emails on Wikileaks reveals him to be a Clinton partisan, writing to Podesta “I would like to do all I can to support Secretary Clinton and would welcome your advice and help in steering me to the right persons in the campaign.” Those words were written less than a week before Fernandez first went public with his declaration of Clinton’s innocence. One would expect Fox News viewers to be interested in such information.

But Smith isn’t done with his misrepresentations or falsehoods. He then boldly declares that no uranium from Uranium One’s US mines has left the country. A simple look at reporting by the New York Times and The Hill reveals that, in fact, it has happened on multiple occasions. Again, one would expect this to be of interest to Fox News viewers.

Fact checks should include all major transactions that relate to the question at hand. One can only wonder why Shepard Smith decided to include misleading analysis while excluding central facts which run counter to the claims he is making.

You can watch Smith’s alleged debunking below:
http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism ... rrassment/

Shep is a bimbo. I think crying on a bridge in NOLA is a much better professional angle for him.
"I predict future happiness for Americans, if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them." - Thomas Jefferson
TheH2
Posts: 3168
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 1:06 pm

Re: You mean uranium one is BS

Post by TheH2 »

HokieJoe wrote:
TheH2 wrote: But they're not close. Maybe the FBI informants mentioned this (link?)? We still have uranium in the U.S., there is still plenty of uranium in Canada we can access. I don't know how much uranium Australia has.
:roll:

We should let Russia have it. It's a commodity! Like going to the farmers market and buying yellow cake.
No, it's morel like going to the farmers market and buying crude oil. And, you don't mine yellowcake, it is converted to yellowcake after mining. Significantly more enriching is required to go from yellowcake to nuclear weapons.

Is there a shortage of u3o8?
Does Russia have a shortage of u3o8? Keep in mind, in the 90s and aughts, Russia was decommissioning nukes and converted the nukes back to uranium that could be used for power.
Does U.S. have a shortage?
Sure, be outraged. Ignore all relevant information. :roll:
:roll:
People who know, know.
User avatar
awesome guy
Posts: 54187
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 7:10 pm
Party: After 10
Location: Plastic Flotilla:Location Classified

Re: You mean uranium one is BS

Post by awesome guy »

TheH2 wrote:
HokieJoe wrote:
TheH2 wrote: But they're not close. Maybe the FBI informants mentioned this (link?)? We still have uranium in the U.S., there is still plenty of uranium in Canada we can access. I don't know how much uranium Australia has.
:roll:

We should let Russia have it. It's a commodity! Like going to the farmers market and buying yellow cake.
No, it's morel like going to the farmers market and buying crude oil. And, you don't mine yellowcake, it is converted to yellowcake after mining. Significantly more enriching is required to go from yellowcake to nuclear weapons.

Is there a shortage of u3o8?
Does Russia have a shortage of u3o8? Keep in mind, in the 90s and aughts, Russia was decommissioning nukes and converted the nukes back to uranium that could be used for power.
Does U.S. have a shortage?
Sure, be outraged. Ignore all relevant information. :roll:
:roll:
That certainly solidified your point. LOL. I hope that one day you're as bright as you think you are, that would be someone to behold rather than the current silly and stubborn person we have now.
Unvaccinated,. mask free, and still alive.
Post Reply