Obama, Hillary, Mueller, Comey, Rosenstein, and possibly more could be charged with Treason.

a reply to: Hewhowaits

The uranium one thing has been debunked even by Fox News.. that is why they stopped talking about it..

You got played, and fell for it hook line and sinker..

You tube “Fox News debunks uranium one.”

You will see the clip

a reply to: Hewhowaits

So if trump made a deal with the Russians. You do agree it was treason then???

a reply to: visitedbythem

Nice that you're concerned but don't worry. That will never happen.

Being a Democrat isn't a crime.

a reply to: Sillyolme

You will meet a tall, handsome stranger and live happily ever after.

.....ok, ok...average height and he may be pretty cute, but we're not talkin' Chris Hemsworth here and... that whole happily ever after thingy?....get a prenup.

a reply to: theantediluvian

They have been going with U1 forever. With only a fraction of it being true, what they believe. Sad. So much else to talk about that is real.

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: AgarthaSeed
Obama implemented those sanctions and kicked out the 35 Russians in December of 2016, because he was butt hurt over Hillary losing. If she had won, Obama would have done nothing at all.

Cuz you got that memo? Or are you just promoting another rectally sourced bit of analysis?

originally posted by: kurthall

originally posted by: AgarthaSeed
a reply to: Hewhowaits

I'm no legal expert by a long shot. But remember when Obama introduced sanctions to Russia sometime around the end of 2016? It was half-assed. He kicked a few Russians out of their embassies in the U.S. But still those were sanctions.

My question is: would it be considered treasonous to broker a private deal with a sanctioned nation regardless of what they intended to do with the uranium?

Meanwhile Trump has had Russian sanctions for months wating to be signed still. Funny North Korea sanctions don't take that long.

Also, no on the OP.

So Obama throws a tantrum on his way out and you think that's tough after 8 years of virtually nothing. Russia gained geo political influence and did whatever they wanted under Obama. Obama told mitt that the Cold war wants their foreign policy back. Remember that?

You also think Trump has done nothing to be tough on Russia? He s done more in one year than Obama has done in 8. He continued Obama's sanctions and didn't lift them in case you didn't notice. He has numerous sanctions against Russia, expelled more diplomats, sanctioned companies, closed embassies in NY, DC and San Fran (a known Russian spyhub), sanctioned Russia for human rights abuses, he's armed Ukraine (Obama didn't), attached Syria for gas attacks (Obama wouldnt), unleashed America's energy independence (Obama wouldn't) to name a few. All of these do not help Russia and actually hurts there world influence.

Oh, it's because he's not moaning about Hillary losing an election bc of some insignificant Russian trolls and protests even when they went against Trump himself as well?

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
a reply to: Hewhowaits

The uranium one thing has been debunked even by Fox News.. that is why they stopped talking about it..

You got played, and fell for it hook line and sinker..

You tube “Fox News debunks uranium one.”

You will see the clip

Oh Fox debunked it. That settles it. This was the definition of a pay for play scheme. Are you going to tell me that the Clintons would never do such a thing?

Which government entity is going to file the criminal indictments against those people?

a reply to: DAVID64

That will be a hugh surprise to my husband of thirty six years.

And though he's 65 now I still think he's handsome and he's average height with a bit of a paunch.

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: Hewhowaits

So we have the Uranium One deal- Brokered by the Clintons so putin could obtain 20% of our uranium.

Nope. None of that is true. Firstly, the deal wasn't "brokered" by the US let alone "the Clintons." Uranium One was a Canadian company which had purchased US mines. As such, CFIUS had to approve the deal. CFIUS was only one body that had to do so. Canada had to approve of the deal, as did Kazakhstan (where the company had other mines) and I imagine Russia.

The State Dept gets 1 of 9 CFIUS votes. Clinton neither attended the CFIUS meetings regarding the deal nor did she cast a vote. That was all done by Jose W. Fernandez, the then Asst Sec of State for Economic, Energy, and Business Affairs.

None of the uranium has been gone to Russia. Exports are strictly controlled by the NRC. In fact, neither Uranium One nor Rosatom (actually ARMZ) have export licenses. Some amount of uranium was sent via third party to Canada. Later, a portion of that uranium was permitted to be exported to Europe.

Also, the 20% thing is the portion of the estimated uranium deposits in the US (proven reserves), estimated to be in the mines.

In exchange for this deal the Clintons foundation received 145 million dollars.

Sure they did. 98% of the figure quoted was received as part of a funding commitment to an initiative ($100 million for the Clinton Giustra Sustainable Growth Initiative) from Frank Giustra, who is a noted philanthropist who has donated similarly large amounts to other charitable causes, and from a celebrity benefit Giustra organized.

All this was done in 2007. At that time, the company that eventually sold to the Russians didn't even exist. Later in 2007, South African company Uranium One bought up the company Giustra founded, UrAsia Energy and the newly merged company kept the Uranium One name. At that time, in 2007, Giustra sold all his shares for around $45 million.

The deal approved by CFIUS and everyone else was the purchase of a 51% (up from 16%) stake in Uranium One. That was occurred in 2010.

So your theory is that Giustra personally donated $100 million dollars to influence a decision to sell a company he no longer held stock in, three years later? And his master plan netted him $45 million less whatever he had invested in the company initially? Genius.

That's a debunking of a mere two sentences worth of disinformation. I'm not inclined to continue but how much do you want to bet that I could easily debunk the rest considering that your primary source is the Gateway-fake news-Pundit?

This stuff is depressing to me. That so many posters have spent so much time talking about this and yet, can't be bothered to do even a little bit of leg work to get a grasp of the basic facts in question. What is that? Who invests that much time and still knows so little?

Right! All well and good but we know the CF got $145 mil.

Why?

And hillary could have stopped it the deal, so couldn't anyone named here.

But they didn't.

It actually doesn't even matter if the product left the USA, the fact that a % of control of a national security was given to a foreign entity, is enough to hang all the bastards.

a reply to: Hewhowaits

Wow you're just an encyclopedia of disinformation aren't you?

a reply to: mkultra11

No Fox didn't debunk it. They just reported the truth instead of this disinformation.
There's a difference.

a reply to: Sillyolme

Bless his soul

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: mkultra11

No Fox didn't debunk it. They just reported the truth instead of this disinformation.
There's a difference.

lol, the one thing FOX told the truth on, was that?

HAHAHAHA!!

OK! Moving on!

lol!

originally posted by: mkultra11
a reply to: theantediluvian

All that effort into a post defending corruption at the highest levels of our government. This is why such corruption exists and maintains power. Keep their supporters vehemently partisan where truth means nothing. Replace Clinton with Trump and you will be singing a different tune.

1. Make an argument. You say I'm defending "corruption at the highest levels of our government" because I posted the facts? Don't they matter? If what you say is true, then I am wrong. If I am wrong, you should be able to point out where.

2. No, I would never be responsible for anything remotely like this mess of fallacious talking points. I do my homework to avoid that very thing.

originally posted by: theantediluvian

originally posted by: mkultra11
a reply to: theantediluvian

All that effort into a post defending corruption at the highest levels of our government. This is why such corruption exists and maintains power. Keep their supporters vehemently partisan where truth means nothing. Replace Clinton with Trump and you will be singing a different tune.

1. Make an argument. You say I'm defending "corruption at the highest levels of our government" because I posted the facts? Don't they matter? If what you say is true, then I am wrong. If I am wrong, you should be able to point out where.

2. No, I would never be responsible for anything remotely like this mess of fallacious talking points. I do my homework to avoid that very thing.

1. You post only those facts that are personal "alternative" facts to support your anti Trump stance. The bias usually pours not just drips.

2. It takes a whole lot of thinking to find a justification for all the corruption and corrupt people you support (And a liberal dose of Hypocrisy). (That's a Yuge amount).

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: AgarthaSeed

It was uranium stock. Not actual uranium.
How do you guys argue this issue over and over and not know that?
There was no product. No uranium left our country. It was shares of uranium stock in a Canadian company with interests in the western United States.

If you want to open a discussion you should at least research the subject.

"It wasn't actual Uranium...it was only OWNERSHIP of Uranium that changed hands"

Attempted "Debunking" does not get any more hilarious than this

a reply to: Hewhowaits

Trump, Sessions, Ryan, Trump Jr., etc. Anybody whose name is in politics is complicit.

a reply to: burgerbuddy

Right! All well and good but we know the CF got $145 mil.

Why?

Well, not exactly. The biggest chunk, the $100 million was a commitment for funding of a joint initiative, with that portion of the funding coming from Giustra's charity. IIRC, he also pledged half his income from mineral extraction. Another $100 million was pledged by Carlos Slim at the same time. That seems to be overlooked because there's no angle there.

I don't know how the money was meted out or if either actually made donations totaling what they committed to but we're talking about funding for a project that is still ongoing 11 years later.

Frank Giustra is a noted philanthropist who was at the time married to an activist filmmaker. He donated something like $30 million to a Clinton HIV/AIDS initiative in 2005 and another $20 million to another initiative in 2010. He (his foundation) donated like $5 million to project for homeless people (unrelated to the Clintons) and has given tens of millions in donations for children's hospitals, etc. And I can't find it right now, but I'm fairly certain he gave something like $25 million to a Canadian university. I think he also sponsors like 50 scholarships to Harvard.

There's ample proof that he regularly gives large sums of money to charity that has nothing to do with the Clintons. There were other people who gave similarly large amounts of money to the same Clinton initiative as he, who have absolutely nothing to do with Uranium One.

And hillary could have stopped it the deal, so couldn't anyone named here.

No, she could not have stopped the deal. The State Department was 1 vote out of 9. The Treasury Department chairs CFIUS btw. The only person who could have single-handedly stopped the merger approval in the US was President Obama. The President has either a 15 or 30 day review period, I think it's 15.

It actually doesn't even matter if the product left the USA, the fact that a % of control of a national security was given to a foreign entity, is enough to hang all the bastards.

Not really. The NRC controls exports and if need be, the federal government could seize the mines and any ore that had been extracted and hadn't left the country.