FBI uncovered Russian bribery plot before Obama admin approved nuclear deal with Moscow

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: introvert

You should really read the news more.Turns out yellow cake from the US was shipped to canada. They just used a company with ashipping licence called Rsb logistics. So ironically they get around them not having one by hiring a company that does. In other words the obama admin lied and they indeed do export Uranium to customers from the US.

Allow me to answer for introvert.


Ahem.....

"Its already been debunked"

There end of argument, no evidence needed.

I think that's how it's done.

a reply to: Grambler

You are very aware that I have linked a copy of the license from the NRC for RSB which clearly demonstrates the disposition of the mined uranium. It goes to Canada for refinement and then comes back to the US PER THE AGREEMENT.

Are you going to pretend you haven't seen that? Do I need to link the document again?

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: spiritualzombie

I don't think you have half a peg leg to stand on in the realm of credibility there bud.

Well for the record, who does? You?

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: introvert

You should really read the news more.Turns out yellow cake from the US was shipped to canada. They just used a company with ashipping licence called Rsb logistics. So ironically they get around them not having one by hiring a company that does. In other words the obama admin lied and they indeed do export Uranium to customers from the US.

Do you understand Uranium One is BASED in Canada? Do you understand that refinement in Canada of the ore mined in the US and the subsequent return to the US was ALWAYS PART OF THE DEAL?

I've demonstrated all this multiple times with evidence to primary sources (like the announcement of the agreement from the NRC, RSB's license from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission) ... have you not seen those?

Or are you remaining intentionally ignorant of the facts?

Or are you intentionally being dishonest?

Several here are exercising those options ... which one are you?

Perhaps the geniuses on the right-wing here (please, don't protest at this point, it's embarrassing enough for you) can explain to us, if there's "no there, there" what FOUR SEPARATE CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEES as well as ONE INVESTIGATION BY SPECIAL COUNSEL are doing?

They seem to think they're investigating the specific matter of Russian interference in our election process in 2016.

Donald Trump has acknowledged that there was Russian interference in our election process in 2016.

Explain to me please, oh brilliant right-wingers-masquerading-as-independents-of-ATS ... are you really saying that Trump, the Congress and the Special Counsel are all mistaken?

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Grambler

You are very aware that I have linked a copy of the license from the NRC for RSB which clearly demonstrates the disposition of the mined uranium. It goes to Canada for refinement and then comes back to the US PER THE AGREEMENT.

Are you going to pretend you haven't seen that? Do I need to link the document again?

Asked about that, the commission confirmed that Uranium One has, in fact, shipped yellowcake to Canada even though it does not have an export license. Instead, the transport company doing the shipping, RSB Logistic Services, has the license. A commission spokesman said that “to the best of our knowledge” most of the uranium sent to Canada for processing was returned for use in the United States. A Uranium One spokeswoman, Donna Wichers, said 25 percent had gone to Western Europe and Japan. At the moment, with the uranium market in a downturn, nothing is being shipped from the Wyoming mines.

www.nytimes.com...

Again, you are wrong.

I await your admission.

So now that we have cleared up that Uranium is being sent overseas, do you now have a problem with this, or will you move the goal post again.

Update :

Bill Clinton personally met with Vladimir Putin to get the uranium deal approved

a reply to: Grambler

No, not wrong at all. I’ve responded to this 2015 article from the Times repeatedly as well.

The citation supposedly quoting Donna Witchers has NEVER been substantiated; to use the term you and yours love so well IT’S FAKE NEWS.

You haven’t cleared up anything, but I see now that you are INTENTIONALLY LYING.

There’s ZERO way at this point that you don’t know the truth. You have been shown ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission that make it clear why the uranium ore goes to Canada and why it comes back to the United States. Further you have been shown that the United States GETS 83% of our uranium supplies from other countries INCLUDING Russia and Kazakhstan.

You are BLATANTLY MISREPRESENTING these matters. There’s zero excuse.

originally posted by: theultimatebelgianjoke
Update :

Bill Clinton personally met with Vladimir Putin to get the uranium deal approved

Full court press on this from the RW/RT Media wing I see. The HIll, by the way, is the source of the Zero Hedge article by the way, you know, the same RW publication that the same articles have inspired so many multiple threads on the same non-issues?

a reply to: Gryphon66

Yep.

Uranium one spokespeople are lying about where they ship their uranium.

You sound ridiculous.

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: Gryphon66

Yep.

Uranium one spokespeople are lying about where they ship their uranium.

You sound ridiculous.

One spokesperson’s alleged quote that is unsubstantiated. Surely if this uranium is going all over the world as you claim you can demonstrate that from other more recent sources, right?

Because I’ve clearly shown that the yield from the Uranium One holdings in the US has dropped to virtuallly nil, and further, that the company is SELLING THEIR MINES both in 2010 and 2016.

I wish I could say you sound ridiculous... but you don’t: you sound like a bald-faced liar.

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Grambler

As many times as you repeat it, you still fail to see you have proven nothing.

Myself and others have proven quite a bit. You fail to understand it, or admit it.

That is not my burden to bear.

Your own words said the collusion investigation into trump was necessary because of their connections to foreign agents.

I've said nothing about collusion. That is not a crime in and of itself. I thought you knew that.

Many examples have been provided of Hillary or her associates connections to foreign agents.

True, but not illegal connections.

You are now backtracking and squirming to somehow claim Hillary's connections dont matter.

No backtracking or squirming required. Can you prove her connections were illegal?

Please do so.

I'm all ears...

Hahahaha!

That's why the investigation needs to happen.

You demand guilt be proven BEFORE an investigation.

How ridiculous.

An investigation needs to happen all because you think she may have done something illegal? Well, that's all we need.

Some conspiracy nut and a few of his friends think something illegal may have taken place, even though they misrepresent the facts and are ill-informed on the issue.

That's enough in my books. Let's call the FBI, who would already be on this case if there was anything to it considering they have been involved since at least 2009, and convince them to investigate away.

Show them your mountain, or perhaps ant hill, of evidence and let's get this show on the road.

a reply to: Grambler

You still beating this dead horse? Let’s see what you’ve attempted to so far...

-Minimize the real issue... (FBI’s investigation of the president) check.
-Make it a liberal problem. Check.
-whenever possible use a situation to cast Clinton in a negative light. Check.

Wow, you hit all the marks. I think you earned your Russian troll badge.

You should educate yourself a bit so you don’t fall into those practices. Might help your credibility.

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: Gryphon66

Yep.

Uranium one spokespeople are lying about where they ship their uranium.

You sound ridiculous.

One spokesperson’s alleged quote that is unsubstantiated. Surely if this uranium is going all over the world as you claim you can demonstrate that from other more recent sources, right?

Because I’ve clearly shown that the yield from the Uranium One holdings in the US has dropped to virtuallly nil, and further, that the company is SELLING THEIR MINES both in 2010 and 2016.

I wish I could say you sound ridiculous... but you don’t: you sound like a bald-faced liar.

Surely if this spokeperson for uranium one is lying, you can provide me with a statement from the company saying that.

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Grambler

As many times as you repeat it, you still fail to see you have proven nothing.

Myself and others have proven quite a bit. You fail to understand it, or admit it.

That is not my burden to bear.

Your own words said the collusion investigation into trump was necessary because of their connections to foreign agents.

I've said nothing about collusion. That is not a crime in and of itself. I thought you knew that.

Many examples have been provided of Hillary or her associates connections to foreign agents.

True, but not illegal connections.

You are now backtracking and squirming to somehow claim Hillary's connections dont matter.

No backtracking or squirming required. Can you prove her connections were illegal?

Please do so.

I'm all ears...

Hahahaha!

That's why the investigation needs to happen.

You demand guilt be proven BEFORE an investigation.

How ridiculous.

An investigation needs to happen all because you think she may have done something illegal? Well, that's all we need.

Some conspiracy nut and a few of his friends think something illegal may have taken place, even though they misrepresent the facts and are ill-informed on the issue.

That's enough in my books. Let's call the FBI, who would already be on this case if there was anything to it considering they have been involved since at least 2009, and convince them to investigate away.

Show them your mountain, or perhaps ant hill, of evidence and let's get this show on the road.

Well the Senate judiciary disagrees with you, they are investigating.

You are a joke.

You outlined exactly what the criteria was for why investigations would be neccessary, meetings with foreign agents, and when shown Hillary and her team did exactly that, you act like it shouldn't apply to them.

It is clear to everyone you are a partisan hack.

originally posted by: spiritualzombie
a reply to: Grambler

You still beating this dead horse? Let’s see what you’ve attempted to so far...

-Minimize the real issue... (FBI’s investigation of the president) check.
-Make it a liberal problem. Check.
-whenever possible use a situation to cast Clinton in a negative light. Check.

Wow, you hit all the marks. I think you earned your Russian troll badge.

You should educate yourself a bit so you don’t fall into those practices. Might help your credibility.

You have added nothing to any of these threads with you c9mments.

You do not want to discuss the issue, you only want to deflect.

You go on and on about how dangerous the Russians are, but don't think Hillary taking millions from them and voting to give them control of hugr amounts of uranium is a big deal.

It laughable.

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: spiritualzombie
a reply to: Grambler

You still beating this dead horse? Let’s see what you’ve attempted to so far...

-Minimize the real issue... (FBI’s investigation of the president) check.
-Make it a liberal problem. Check.
-whenever possible use a situation to cast Clinton in a negative light. Check.

Wow, you hit all the marks. I think you earned your Russian troll badge.

You should educate yourself a bit so you don’t fall into those practices. Might help your credibility.

You have added nothing to any of these threads with you c9mments.

You go on and on about how dangerous the Russians are, but don't think Hillary taking millions from them and voting to give them control of hugr amounts of uranium is a big deal.

Consider it a spotlight on your tactics and hypocrisy. Hey, look at the bold text above- You just did it again:

Minimized the real issue (Russia's influence and FBI's investigation into the president), make it a liberal problem, and use it to cast negative light on Hillary.

Same tactic over and over... And would be okay except minimizing the real issue all the time, calling the real issue 'fake news' totally outs you. And of course... the Hillary thing was less obvious during the election because she was relevant... but now... the pattern becomes very clear.

a reply to: Grambler

You have an unsubstantiated source.

Fake news.

Prove otherwise.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Grambler

You have an unsubstantiated source.

Fake news.

Prove otherwise.

Unlike the anonymous sources that you eat up over the trump investigation, this is a named person who is an official spokesman for uranium one making this comment.

If she is not telling the truth, I am sure you would have no problem showing a statement from uranium one saying she is wrong.

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Grambler

You have an unsubstantiated source.

Fake news.

Prove otherwise.

Unlike the anonymous sources that you eat up over the trump investigation, this is a named person who is an official spokesman for uranium one making this comment.

If she is not telling the truth, I am sure you would have no problem showing a statement from uranium one saying she is wrong.

A named person who isn’t quoted ... right? So what you’re saying is, you have no proof at all that any uranium has been shipped out of this country. Just a comment from someone about a comment by someone else in an article from 2015 ... nothing.

Whereas I have put the exact nature of this in perspective with primary sources from the NRC. I’ve shown clearly that that production has virtually stopped and that these mines are being sold off.

Sure, keep on piping that tune for your masters.

This is a pretty big deal right? I mean, Uranium One/Rosatom is breaking US law by exporting without a license. Yet, your contention is that a spokesperson for that company just admitted that years ago ... and we haven’t heard anything about it since?

Come on G. Did Rosatom make an announcement? Surely there’s ACTUAL evidence, right?