Fox News Fair & Balanced Uranium One Deal

[Starbuck1975]

What you are implying is that you do not know the difference between a private family foundation and a public charity.

These articles can start you on a path of not sounding like an ignorant mislead fool.
https://www.insidephilanthropy.com/...undation-a-look-at-bill-and-hillarys-per.html
https://www.philanthropy.com/article/Opinion-How-to-Understand-the/230745
http://www.jsmco.com/blog/what is a private family foundation, and why set it up?.htm
https://cullinanelaw.com/difference-between-public-charity-and-private-foundation/

Which has nothing to do with the potential conflict of interest implications

 

[fskimospy]

Clinton was the sole signator for which there was a financial component, and he also had a fairly significant role as Secretary of State.

So again, WHAT CORRUPT THING DID SHE DO.

 

[Starbuck1975]

It really is amazing.

‘Clinton is corrupt!’

‘Okay, what corrupt thing did she do?’

*crickets*

Crickets can be quite loud in aggregate. Distacting even. Distracting to the point that they send a campaign off message having to respond to all those noisy crickets, and by extension costing an election.

 

[momeNt]

I can't help but notice you didn't give the 'simple answer' either. This is of course because there is no logical answer.

What corrupt action are you alleging she took in order to get this deal approved that was the result of donations to her, her family, or her foundation?

The simple answer is it has nothing to do with Hillary being corrupt. It was a play by Russia to make her look that way.

Who is to say that this entire deal and the campaign contributions wasn't designed to torpedo Hillary?

Russia gets to play both sides of the deal too.

A. They key in Trump on the donations and allow him to use it to smear Hillary.

or

B. If Hillary gets elected, they have an opportunity to possibly leverage these donations to get some favors.

 

[ivwshane]

Clinton was the sole signator for which there was a financial component, and he also had a fairly significant role as Secretary of State.

And? Are you implying that had they not received money for their foundation that she would have objected to the deal?

 

[fskimospy]

The simple answer is it has nothing to do with Hillary being corrupt. It was a play by Russia to make her look that way.

Who is to say that this entire deal and the campaign contributions wasn't designed to torpedo Hillary?

Russia gets to play both sides of the deal too.

A. They key in Trump on the donations and allow him to use it to smear Hillary.

or

B. If Hillary gets elected, they have an opportunity to possibly leverage these donations to get some favors.

That would be one hell of a long game considering almost 100% of the donations came something like 3 years before the deal and something like a year and a half before she became Secretary of State.

That’s quite a crystal ball the Russians would have to have had. Considering the timeline doesn’t make sense the most likely answer is that there’s nothing to it but unscrupulous political enemies of Clinton find it useful to attack her with.

 

[ivwshane]

That would be one hell of a long game considering almost 100% of the donations came something like 3 years before the deal and something like a year and a half before she became Secretary of State.

That’s quite a crystal ball the Russians would have to have had. Considering the timeline doesn’t make sense the most likely answer is that there’s nothing to it but unscrupulous political enemies of Clinton find it useful to attack her with.

On what grounds would the committee members have to object to the deal in the first place? Was there even any concern to begin with?

The only person who could have stopped the r deal would have been the president so I'm failing to see where the conspiracy is if the deal had a 100% chance of being approved regardless.

 

[IronWing]

If Foxnews is playing its cards correctly, they are allowing people like Shep to do segments like this to add legitimacy to their organization.
If Fox did not include segments like that then they face increased reputational risk.
The "fallacy flavored editorial" format brings in the masses but you can't call yourself a news organization if that's your core product.

Um, this is Fox; they have no legitimacy as a news organization.

 

[Starbuck1975]

And? Are you implying that had they not received money for their foundation that she would have objected to the deal?

I am saying that the Clintons do a really sh!tty job of getting in front of potential conflicts of interest.

I mean come on, do none of you work for large companies? The amount of training I've received over the years has taught me to avoid situations that even provide the smallest perception of a conflict of interest.

So what you're telling me is that the supposed greatest, most qualified and best prepared Presidential candidate of all time is somehow incapable of steering clear of obvious landmines.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

Clinton was the sole signator for which there was a financial component, and he also had a fairly significant role as Secretary of State.

Did you watch the entire video?

 

[deathBOB]

I am saying that the Clintons do a really sh!tty job of getting in front of potential conflicts of interest.

I mean come on, do none of you work for large companies? The amount of training I've received over the years has taught me to avoid situations that even provide the smallest perception of a conflict of interest.

So what you're telling me is that the supposed greatest, most qualified and best prepared Presidential candidate of all time is somehow incapable of steering clear of obvious landmines.

LOL So the ball has been kicked down the field from “corruption” to “appearance of impropriety.”

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

It's beyond me why we would allow an adversarial foreign interest to acquire a significant interest in such a strategic national resource.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

It's beyond me why we would allow an adversarial foreign interest to acquire a significant interest in such a strategic national resource.

I agree, however most of that is covered in the video. Did you watch it?

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

I agree, however most of that is covered in the video. Did you watch it?

Yes...but I didn't see an answer to my concern.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

Yes...but I didn't see an answer to my concern.

I took it as the two firms merged (the Canadian firm and the US firm) then later the Russian firm bought controlling interest in the merged companies. There seems to be very little Governmental oversight in this area.
I do feel this is a good opportunity to talk rationally about the issue and figure out a plan to avoid it happening again.
This isn't saying everyone is off the hook but it does make the issues much less partisan and more clear.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

I took it as the two firms merged (the Canadian firm and the US firm) then later the Russian firm bought controlling interest in the merged companies. There seems to be very little Governmental oversight in this area.
I do feel this is a good opportunity to talk rationally about the issue and figure out a plan to avoid it happening again.
This isn't saying everyone is off the hook but it does make the issues much less partisan and more clear.

I couldn't agree more. And I'm pleased to see that we're not as dependent on Uranium One as we once were...and hope we eventually find a way to stop doing business with them altogether.

 

[Jhhnn]

I am saying that the Clintons do a really sh!tty job of getting in front of potential conflicts of interest.

I mean come on, do none of you work for large companies? The amount of training I've received over the years has taught me to avoid situations that even provide the smallest perception of a conflict of interest.

So what you're telling me is that the supposed greatest, most qualified and best prepared Presidential candidate of all time is somehow incapable of steering clear of obvious landmines.

No, Repubs are just shitty for claiming that such conflicts ever existed. The Clintons put 10% of their own income into their foundation to help some of the world's poorest people. They created the framework for other people to contribute. The foundation itself is squeaky clean getting top marks from people who evaluate such things.

Why can't it just be that? You can investigate the Hell out of it like Ben-fucking-ghazi & still come to the same conclusion.

 

[Jhhnn]

There seems to be very little Governmental oversight in this area.

That's inane. Nine agencies of our own govt & the Canadians looked the deal over before Obama approved it.

 

[Jhhnn]

I couldn't agree more. And I'm pleased to see that we're not as dependent on Uranium One as we once were...and hope we eventually find a way to stop doing business with them altogether.

There are times when you don't come across as being very bright. This is one of them.

Owners and operators of U.S. nuclear power reactors purchased the equivalent of 50.6 million pounds of uranium in 2016. About 11% of the uranium delivered to U.S. reactors in 2016 was produced in the United States and 89% came from other countries.

Sources and shares of purchases of uranium produced in foreign countries in 2016:

• Canada–25%
• Kazakhstan–24%
• Australia–20%
• Russia–14%
• Uzbekistan–4%
• Malawi, Namibia, Niger, and South Africa–10%
• Brazil, Bulgaria, China, Czech Republic, Germany, and Ukraine–2%

https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/index.cfm?page=nuclear_where

 

[Starbuck1975]

LOL So the ball has been kicked down the field from “corruption” to “appearance of impropriety.”

Appearance of impropriety is the leading indicator of corruption

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

There are times when you don't come across as being very bright. This is one of them.


https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/index.cfm?page=nuclear_where

What exactly is your point?

 

[Jhhnn]

Appearance of impropriety is the leading indicator of corruption

Repubs can make anybody look bad to the faithful. They can even make themselves look good at the same time. The depth of delusion is astounding.

 

[fskimospy]

Appearance of impropriety is the leading indicator of corruption

What corruption does it indicate here, specifically?

 

[BigDH01]

Yes...but I didn't see an answer to my concern.

If I remember correctly from the video, the uranium mined at that location must remain in the US.

Yep: https://youtu.be/RnsAZzsdI1U?t=244

And in case of conflict with Russia, I'm sure the interest in the mine or the mine itself would simply be nationalized.

 

[Jhhnn]

What exactly is your point?

My point is that Uranium One is obviously a very large supplier of Uranium in this country even if they're not explicitly listed as such in the linked article.