It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: Indigo5
That is a false claim...and not by a little..
originally posted by: ElectricUniverse
originally posted by: Indigo5
That is a false claim...and not by a little..
Well, you are "partly right". After all, in 2010 Clinton was one of 9 other voting members of the foreign investment committee that approved the Uranium deal. All of them were part of the Obama administration. Not to mention that former President Obama had to sign this agreement as well.
While she did not do it all herself, she was part of the Obama administration team that along former President Obama approved the deal. As for it being a false claim that she had anything to do with it... it seems you are the one making the false claim. She was a voting member of the foreign investment committee, and she did vote in favor of the deal.
originally posted by: introvert
...
Even if she objected, she had no power to stop it from going forward.
...
Beyond mines in Kazakhstan that are among the most lucrative in the world, the sale gave the Russians control of one-fifth of all uranium production capacity in the United States. Since uranium is considered a strategic asset, with implications for national security, the deal had to be approved by a committee composed of representatives from a number of United States government agencies. Among the agencies that eventually signed off was the State Department, then headed by Mr. Clinton’s wife, Hillary Rodham Clinton.
As the Russians gradually assumed control of Uranium One in three separate transactions from 2009 to 2013, Canadian records show, a flow of cash made its way to the Clinton Foundation. Uranium One’s chairman used his family foundation to make four donations totaling $2.35 million. Those contributions were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons, despite an agreement Mrs. Clinton had struck with the Obama White House to publicly identify all donors. Other people with ties to the company made donations as well.
...
originally posted by: introvert
originally posted by: Swills
a reply to: introvert
They never are and they must think they'll never get caught. I mean, in this day and age how does think they won't get caught when everyone is being spied on? And too boot, she held a Top Secret clearance and every 5 years it must be renewed which means you must be investigated all over again!!
But, a sewing machine!!!!!!!
If I had to take a guess, I'd say they weren't trying to make themselves rich, but instead were just trying to improve their everyday lives just a little bit.
Asking for a sewing machine is just...stupid.
originally posted by: buster2010
So now we are charging people for this? Trumps son in law must be sweating bullets seeing how he forgot to to disclose his extensive relationship with a known Russian agent when he applied for security clearance. If they are going to apply the law to one person then apply it to everyone.
originally posted by: JacKatMtn
Everything was fine for this criminal... until Hillary LOST the election...
Draining the swamp... has to start somewhere...
originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: ElectricUniverse
That makes no sense. She has no power to stop the sale from taking place. Why would the Russians bribe her when her role in the matter is powerless?
originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: ElectricUniverse
That makes no sense. She has no power to stop the sale from taking place. Why would the Russians bribe her when her role in the matter is powerless?
originally posted by: Justoneman
originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: ElectricUniverse
That makes no sense. She has no power to stop the sale from taking place. Why would the Russians bribe her when her role in the matter is powerless?
MAYBE because there is under the table things happening? Seems like the pattern from the elite power mongers, no matter their party affiliation and THAT needs to end.
originally posted by: TheScale
originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: ElectricUniverse
That makes no sense. She has no power to stop the sale from taking place. Why would the Russians bribe her when her role in the matter is powerless?
but she has alot of power to influence them to get it to pass
originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: ElectricUniverse
It appears this woman has been working for the SD long before Clinton was it's head. I've not seen anything yet that states when she began taking gifts in exchange for information.
I'd like to see when it began.
originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: ElectricUniverse
That makes no sense. She has no power to stop the sale from taking place. Why would the Russians bribe her when her role in the matter is powerless?
originally posted by: Gryphon66
originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: ElectricUniverse
That makes no sense. She has no power to stop the sale from taking place. Why would the Russians bribe her when her role in the matter is powerless?
Jesus, this again?
It's odd that they never mention that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission also approved the MERGER, and further that all American uranium ultimately stays in the US .
originally posted by: introvert
originally posted by: Justoneman
originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: ElectricUniverse
That makes no sense. She has no power to stop the sale from taking place. Why would the Russians bribe her when her role in the matter is powerless?
MAYBE because there is under the table things happening? Seems like the pattern from the elite power mongers, no matter their party affiliation and THAT needs to end.
Do you have an example?
originally posted by: Justoneman
originally posted by: introvert
originally posted by: Justoneman
originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: ElectricUniverse
That makes no sense. She has no power to stop the sale from taking place. Why would the Russians bribe her when her role in the matter is powerless?
MAYBE because there is under the table things happening? Seems like the pattern from the elite power mongers, no matter their party affiliation and THAT needs to end.
Do you have an example?
Sure, but apparently any and all wouldn't matter because i have seen a bunch of examples on ATS that YOU and the select few have chose not to believe. But for starters we could go back to Arkansas...... Yea, Whitewater looks like a "privileged cracker" situation to me, to quote from the very bad Rev, Jessie Jackson. I despise ALL corruption, not just the ones the R's are participants.
originally posted by: introvert
Only the president has the power to stop the sale. The board itself does not have the power.