Fox News Fair & Balanced Uranium One Deal

Page 7 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Feb 4, 2009
35,862
17,407
136
How many more times do we need to cover this? Uranium leaves the country all the time for Canada and uranium was exported to Europe as well. Unless the country includes the planet Earth, then uranium did leave.


I seem to remember you having a different opinion just a few weeks ago.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,686
136
How many more times do we need to cover this? Uranium leaves the country all the time for Canada and uranium was exported to Europe as well. Unless the country includes the planet Earth, then uranium did leave.

So what? ~90% of the uranium used in this country is imported. The fact that there is some small counter flow in no way endangers America.

"Oh but they lied!" is just pissant recrimination many years down he road.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,686
136
I have stated, repeatedly, that I do not think they are related, I honestly do not care if they are related even.

Two things happened, and everybody has to admit that, because it is the truth. Trump and Bannon and the Russian troll army are then able to use those facts to make Clinton look bad.

That's all I am saying. That is exactly what happened as well.

My first post in this thread was that what mattered was the optics of the situation. That's all Trump and Russia cared about as well. Nobody cares if Hillary is corrupt, they care about making her look that way.

You already bought into falsehood when you claimed that Russia contributed to CF because uranium when there's no evidence that they did.

See how that works? Believing in one lie primes you for more.
 

brandonbull

Diamond Member
May 3, 2005
6,365
1,223
126
Yes under agreements and approvals by participating governments. Are you now inferring that Canada is helping Russia (who already have large uranium deposits)?

I wish you were this interested in things like the state department awarding a no bid contract to secure US embassies in Russia to a company who has direct ties to Putin and his minions.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/paulro...ivity-by-russias-nuclear-agency/#70a201a4be17

http://www.ocregister.com/2017/11/03/the-intrigue-radiating-from-uranium-one/
 

momeNt

Diamond Member
Jan 26, 2011
9,290
352
126
You already bought into falsehood when you claimed that Russia contributed to CF because uranium when there's no evidence that they did.

See how that works? Believing in one lie primes you for more.

Who said anything about "because uranium"?

Russia bought uranium

Russia contributed to CF

I am not making a connection there. They are two entirely separate distinct truths.

Russian troll army and the Bannon nationalist troll army created the memes and ran with it.
 
Feb 4, 2009
35,862
17,407
136

Just so I understand below is a summary:

Hillary did not send 20% of the US uranium to Russia
Hillary did not accept a 140 plus some million bride
Hillary may have accepted a 2-3 million bribe to the Clinton foundation
Hillary was not the sole approver of this deal

Do you agree?
 

cytg111

Lifer
Mar 17, 2008
26,744
16,024
136
So now there is evidence of a broader involvement of Democrats and their Russian friends around corruption and it's a non issue because it isn't centered around Hillary?

What evidence? To quote Sessions on the subject;

“You can have your idea, but sometimes we have to study what the facts are, and to evaluate whether it meets the standards it requires."

Sessions is your guy btw. Even fox called it fake news. You cant *will* something into existence by simply yabbering about it it on a forum on the interwebs.. you may fool some folk for a short amount of time but that time is up now buster.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
This conspiracy theory has never made any sense. It’s purely an exercise in magical thinking by the lunatic fringe.

I’ve asked a simple question many times and never gotten a real answer to it: if the accusation is money —> Clinton —> corrupt action —> deal approved, what is the corrupt action that she took to approve the deal? You would think this would be easy to answer but apparently it’s impossible.
Because Clinton took no such action. Her "donations" were just money to grease the skids, so that she wouldn't take any action to derail the deal. It's the way Hillary always operates, and it's completely legal.

BTW I agree completely with your assessment of Smith and Wallace. As to why they stay, well, we have a sitting Democrat Senator on trial for numerous felony corruption counts and ABC, CBS and NBC together can't muster even half a minute to cover that. Pick your poison, ain't none of them journalism anymore.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,686
136

soundforbjt

Lifer
Feb 15, 2002
17,788
6,041
136
Because Clinton took no such action. Her "donations" were just money to grease the skids, so that she wouldn't take any action to derail the deal. It's the way Hillary always operates, and it's completely legal.

BTW I agree completely with your assessment of Smith and Wallace. As to why they stay, well, we have a sitting Democrat Senator on trial for numerous felony corruption counts and ABC, CBS and NBC together can't muster even half a minute to cover that. Pick your poison, ain't none of them journalism anymore.
MSNBC was covering it, it was a mistrial.
 

Alpha One Seven

Golden Member
Sep 11, 2017
1,098
124
66
This conspiracy theory has never made any sense. It’s purely an exercise in magical thinking by the lunatic fringe.

I’ve asked a simple question many times and never gotten a real answer to it: if the accusation is money —> Clinton —> corrupt action —> deal approved, what is the corrupt action that she took to approve the deal? You would think this would be easy to answer but apparently it’s impossible.
Everything sh has ever done has been tinged with corruption, it's why she is always having to lie to congress.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,686
136
Because Clinton took no such action. Her "donations" were just money to grease the skids, so that she wouldn't take any action to derail the deal. It's the way Hillary always operates, and it's completely legal.

BTW I agree completely with your assessment of Smith and Wallace. As to why they stay, well, we have a sitting Democrat Senator on trial for numerous felony corruption counts and ABC, CBS and NBC together can't muster even half a minute to cover that. Pick your poison, ain't none of them journalism anymore.

What a load of presumptuous bullshit. The allegation that she's corrupt because she did something won't fly so you claim that she's corrupt because she didn't do anything.

Sweet freaking Jebsu.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
88,226
55,775
136
Because Clinton took no such action. Her "donations" were just money to grease the skids, so that she wouldn't take any action to derail the deal. It's the way Hillary always operates, and it's completely legal.

So to be clear you are claiming that all the other agencies were bribed too? Or is it that you think Clinton was going to invent a reason to derail a perfectly innocuous deal unless she got paid? What? Please spell it out as clearly as you can.

Your ability to invent conspiracies out of thin air is as always, amazing. First it was Clinton’s actions that were corrupt. Now Clinton’s LACK of action is evidence of corruption. Lol.

BTW I agree completely with your assessment of Smith and Wallace. As to why they stay, well, we have a sitting Democrat Senator on trial for numerous felony corruption counts and ABC, CBS and NBC together can't muster even half a minute to cover that. Pick your poison, ain't none of them journalism anymore.

It was front page news everywhere today, not sure how anyone with working eyeballs could have missed it.

Chalk it up to another case of conservatives declaring media bias even if they have to invent it themselves.
 

wirelessenabled

Platinum Member
Feb 5, 2001
2,192
44
91
Clinton was the sole signator for which there was a financial component, and he also had a fairly significant role as Secretary of State.

English much? The "he" Clinton was President, never Secretary of State. The Secretary of State was a she Clinton.

I'll have to look up and see if the Russian language has personal pronouns with gender.

Besides which your line of questions are false. The approval was given by 9 agencies not just by the State Dept. Are you going to smear the representatives of the other 8 agencies that approved the transaction or are you just interested in the he or she Clinton?
 
Mar 11, 2004
23,444
5,852
146
English much? The "he" Clinton was President, never Secretary of State. The Secretary of State was a she Clinton.

I'll have to look up and see if the Russian language has personal pronouns with gender.

Besides which your line of questions are false. The approval was given by 9 agencies not just by the State Dept. Are you going to smear the representatives of the other 8 agencies that approved the transaction or are you just interested in the he or she Clinton?

Deep state! Duh!
 

Starbuck1975

Lifer
Jan 6, 2005
14,698
1,909
126
English much? The "he" Clinton was President, never Secretary of State. The Secretary of State was a she Clinton.

I'll have to look up and see if the Russian language has personal pronouns with gender.

Besides which your line of questions are false. The approval was given by 9 agencies not just by the State Dept. Are you going to smear the representatives of the other 8 agencies that approved the transaction or are you just interested in the he or she Clinton?
Ah yes, because I made a typo, we must therefore evoke the Russian boogey man.

I am in favor of transparency and following the money of who benefited from the deal, and any quid pro quo, ethical breaches or conflicts of interest
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,686
136
Ah yes, because I made a typo, we must therefore evoke the Russian boogey man.

I am in favor of transparency and following the money of who benefited from the deal, and any quid pro quo, ethical breaches or conflicts of interest

You're in favor of beating it to death because Hillary.
 

momeNt

Diamond Member
Jan 26, 2011
9,290
352
126
That's the part that isn't true.

http://www.newsweek.com/fact-check-clintons-russia-trump-688592

Other people involved in the deal contributed. There's no point in bribing people who can't do what you want, either, & Hillary sure as hell couldn't make the rest of the govt go for the deal.

There's no way that the conspiracy theory makes any sense at all when you don't believe in any of the lies.

Other people involved in the deal contributed. You are trying to split hairs when I am discussing first blush optics.

This is why Bannon/Russia/Trump were able to run with it. You were too busy calling for everybody to slow down and watch you dissect hairs to prove just how completely illogical and unbelievable it was. Everybody else was busy upvoting memes about Hillary being corrupt and EMAILS!

You play to win the game. Bannon and Co understood that.
 

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
111,978
31,536
146
So now there is evidence of a broader involvement of Democrats and their Russian friends around corruption and it's a non issue because it isn't centered around Hillary?

The only issue I see is that there really isn't a stadium that can be built large enough to accommodate the distance and location permutations of the goal post placement that you feel is necessary for this whatever sport that you are engaged in.