Fox News Fair & Balanced Uranium One Deal

[fskimospy]

And surrogates and donors who benefitted directly from the outcome, or were otherwise tangentially involved, is SOP for the Clinton's.

No, excusing an utter lack of transparency, and playing semantics to excuse it because it's your team, is some weak sh!t.

I suppose we could have the federal bureau of matters look into these matters.

To be clear you want the FBI to investigate someone where you can't name any improper conduct that occurred.

Does that seem logical to you?

 

[pauldun170]

And surrogates and donors who benefitted directly from the outcome, or were otherwise tangentially involved, is SOP for the Clinton's.

No, excusing an utter lack of transparency, and playing semantics to excuse it because it's your team, is some weak sh!t.

I suppose we could have the federal bureau of matters look into these matters.

 

[Victorian Gray]

And surrogates and donors who benefitted directly from the outcome, or were otherwise tangentially involved, is SOP for the Clinton's.

No, excusing an utter lack of transparency, and playing semantics to excuse it because it's your team, is some weak sh!t.

I suppose we could have the federal bureau of matters look into these matters.

Name some names and how they benefited.

 

[Starbuck1975]

To be clear you want the FBI to investigate someone where you can't name any improper conduct that occurred.

Does that seem logical to you?

Name some names and how they benefited.

This article seems incredibly logical to me, dating back to 2015. The closing sentence of the article really sums it up nicely:

https://www.newyorker.com/news/amy-davidson/five-questions-about-the-clintons-and-a-uranium-company

 

[woolfe9998]

This article seems incredibly logical to me, dating back to 2015. The closing sentence of the article really sums it up nicely:

https://www.newyorker.com/news/amy-davidson/five-questions-about-the-clintons-and-a-uranium-company

If the Clintons have created an appearance of impropriety in the way they have conducted themselves, it's fair to point that out. But his question goes to why there should be an investigation. What I keep coming back to is that since 9 agencies had to approve this, there doesn't seem to be a need to investigate. So why don't you try supplying a valid reason to use government resources to investigate this, besides "the Clintons have made themselves easy targets."

 

[fskimospy]

If the Clintons have created an appearance of impropriety in the way they have conducted themselves, it's fair to point that out. But his question goes to why there should be an investigation. What I keep coming back to is that since 9 agencies had to approve this, there doesn't seem to be a need to investigate. So why don't you try supplying a valid reason to use government resources to investigate this, besides "the Clintons have made themselves easy targets."

I’ve asked him that repeatedly and he’s been unable to answer.

 

[Starbuck1975]

 

[Jhhnn]

And surrogates and donors who benefitted directly from the outcome, or were otherwise tangentially involved, is SOP for the Clinton's.

No, excusing an utter lack of transparency, and playing semantics to excuse it because it's your team, is some weak sh!t.

I suppose we could have the federal bureau of matters look into these matters.

Who received what direct benefits and when?

Just because you level the same innuendo in a different way doesn't change the bullshit nature of the accusation.

The whole thing about the CF illustrates perfectly the idea that no good deed goes unpunished.

 

[Starbuck1975]

If the Clintons have created an appearance of impropriety in the way they have conducted themselves, it's fair to point that out. But his question goes to why there should be an investigation. What I keep coming back to is that since 9 agencies had to approve this, there doesn't seem to be a need to investigate. So why don't you try supplying a valid reason to use government resources to investigate this, besides "the Clintons have made themselves easy targets."

Does the appearance of improprietary not in and of itself rationalize an independent investigation?

 

[Starbuck1975]

Name some names and how they benefited.

Were you able to name names prior to the Mueller indictment? The New Yorker article I linked spells out the quid pro quo implications and those who benefitted from the transaction.

 

[woolfe9998]

Does the appearance of improprietary not in and of itself rationalize an independent investigation?

It depends. Failing to disclose a donation is going to raise eyebrows, especially among the Clintons' political enemies, and for that reason, it's foolish to not disclose the donations. But when it's nigh impossible for the donee to supply the donor's desired outcome, there isn't much reason to investigate, is there? Now, why don't you just tell us specifically why you think there should be an investigation here, and while doing so, please address the apparent impossibility of any sort of pay to play scheme here.

 

[Jaskalas]

As I recall from the Fox video, the charity's donation to the Foundation was reported, but not where the charity got its donations from. Right? Hardly seems odd.

And all this is over a mere $4 million.

 

[Jhhnn]

If the Clintons have created an appearance of impropriety in the way they have conducted themselves, it's fair to point that out. But his question goes to why there should be an investigation. What I keep coming back to is that since 9 agencies had to approve this, there doesn't seem to be a need to investigate. So why don't you try supplying a valid reason to use government resources to investigate this, besides "the Clintons have made themselves easy targets."

Well, yeh, but people are saying...

 

[ch33zw1z]

sending thoughts and prayers?

 

[ch33zw1z]

Well, yeh, but people are saying...

maybe Roy Moore shows up at the pizza shop....never know!

 

[ch33zw1z]

As I recall from the Fox video, the charity's donation to the Foundation was reported, but not where the charity got its donations from. Right? Hardly seems odd.

And all this is over a mere $4 million.

ANY distraction is good, its getting desperate

 

[Jhhnn]

It's remarkable how things have changed in our relationship with Russia. Putin stepped aside for 4 years in 2008. Medvedev was in charge in 2010 & honest efforts were involved in the whole "reset" thing. The Uranium One sale was just a business deal over an international commodity. Guistra & investors made an insane amount of money in the deal. The whole thing changed for the worse in 2014 when Putin exploited Ukrainian disarray to annex Crimea & start shooting in the Donbass. To let that stand w/o some kind of penalty was simply impossible, unthinkable.

Being otherwise powerless to fight that Putin set his people to fucking with our heads & with our election in hopes of helping to install incompetence in our leadership or to at least discredit Clinton before she took office. I figure they succeeded beyond their expectations. Why else would they put out the effort that they did?

Trumpsters are way into denial about that. When I ask them how it feels to be on the same side of the election as a massively talented Russian psyops effort it doesn't even register.

La-lala-lala. And Lock her up! of course.

 

[nickqt]

ANY distraction is good, its getting desperate

Pretty much this.

It's dragging the conversation away from the fact that Strongman Trump is the essence of modern US conservatism, d/b/a the Republican party.

When one side is downright disgusting, you have to, somehow, BothSidesTheShit™ out of any and all possible talking points that you can.

 

[Victorian Gray]

This article seems incredibly logical to me, dating back to 2015. The closing sentence of the article really sums it up nicely:

https://www.newyorker.com/news/amy-davidson/five-questions-about-the-clintons-and-a-uranium-company

I see a lot of speculation and no answer to my question.

Ah, I see, it's a more than 2 year old article. That explains at least some of the mistakes I guess.

And I think that this, from an article from earlier this month pretty much sums things up rather more realistically:

"So far no one has found any evidence that any of the money the Clintons received was sent in exchange for Hillary's approval. Maybe more importantly, even if the mining company had explicitly paid her off, that almost certainly would not have affected the deal. Although Trump supporters make it sound like she had sole authority to approve or kill it, her State Department was just one of nine agencies on the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) charged with vetting the deal, and was not even the lead agency on the body. Clinton did not represent her agency on CFIUS, and both she and her proxy at the time say she was never even involved in this approval process.

"If the Secretary of State was throwing their weight around on a deal that never hit their desk," said Max Bergmann, a former State Department staffer and Russo-American affairs expert, "it would be a big deal and other agencies would push back."

Additionally, CFIUS was not the only body that had a say in the deal. It was also vetted by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Barack Obama, not Clinton, had the final yea or nay vote. No accounts of the far right Uranium One narrative, said Oliver, offer a clear narrative for how she would have controlled the process."

https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/...n-gave-the-russians-uranium-conspiracy-theory

Now back to your regularly scheduled conspiracy.

 

[Victorian Gray]

Were you able to name names prior to the Mueller indictment? The New Yorker article I linked spells out the quid pro quo implications and those who benefitted from the transaction.

That article is full of shit.

 

[Orsorum]

Trumpsters are way into denial about that. When I ask them how it feels to be on the same side of the election as a massively talented Russian psyops effort it doesn't even register.

Massively talented? You mean the low rent amateur hack jobs with a few $1k of investment to purchase? Didn't vote for Trump, but it does give me some schadenfreude that the Democrats' chosen one was so monstrously uninspiring and entitled that she lost to the Other Guys' version of psyops.

 

[Jhhnn]

Pretty much this.

It's dragging the conversation away from the fact that Strongman Trump is the essence of modern US conservatism, d/b/a the Republican party.

When one side is downright disgusting, you have to, somehow, BothSidesTheShit™ out of any and all possible talking points that you can.

The truth is that our Repub congress can investigate any damned fool thing they want for no reason whatsoever. So if Goodlatte, Nunes & the rest of the Trump toady cheerleaders want that they can do it themselves. They want the DoJ to do it instead so that it won't appear to be the witch hunt that it really is. The professionals in the DoJ want nothing to do with it because they normally need evidence other than innuendo about misdeeds before they can start. They know it's a witch hunt beneath the dignity of the department & the people they serve.

 

[ch33zw1z]

Massively talented? You mean the low rent amateur hack jobs with a few $1k of investment to purchase? Didn't vote for Trump, but it does give me some schadenfreude that the Democrats' chosen one was so monstrously uninspiring and entitled that she lost to the Other Guys' version of psyops.

you must not be U.S. citizen. Plebes will all lose. If you are a citizen, you schadenfreude is foolhardy.

 

[Orsorum]

you must not be U.S. citizen. Plebes will all lose. If you are a citizen, you schadenfreude is foolhardy.

Good luck with that line of trolling.

 

[ch33zw1z]

Good luck with that line of trolling.

......yea, ok.