My 8 year old granddaughter was in the room when the news came on about the US and Russia working together on cyber security. Her question was priceless, "Grandpa, who holds the president accountable?" I smiled and said the voters in 3 years.
OT - Great Question
- Thread starter Boulder1
- Start date
That is the equivalent of giving the fox the keys to the henhouse. Oh well, what's really going to be wild, hope I don't live to see it, but WW3, it will have some odd bedfellows. USA+Germany+Japan+S.Korea+Israel+Canada+England+France against Russia+China+N.Korea+Syria+Iran. Left off several countries due to difficulty in predicting which side they would fall plus some may sit out, although it may be difficult to sit this one out totally.
Russia and China probably won't go to war over Syria North Korea or Iran. They want to survive and deep down get it that the USA isn't interested in war with Russia or China. But the fat boy in Korea is a sociopath and Israel shouldn't let Iran develope nukes if they already have not
Without referencing Rachael Maddow, prove it. Show first hand evidence that you know this to be true.
the amazing thing is there is more evidence that the democrats were colluding starting with Hillary and Podesta colluding
They re ALL dirty. They make Benedict Arnold look like a patriot.
Bodizephax
I've posted how many times?
Bodizephax
I've posted how many times?
I talked to a Russian last summer in Chicago. He wanted to know which way to Millennium Park but he knew that I knew there was something more sinister to his question. Perhaps if it is ok to put ketchup/catsup on a hot dog. Did I do something illegal by talking to a Russian? I have had many sleepless nights since the incident.
Man I am thinking with 2 bottles of vintage 1989 King Cobra duct taped to each of our hands while we listen to Poison's "Open Up and Say... AHHH" very loudly. (Number 1 record at the time of the last national championship)
Bodizephax
I've posted how many times?
You bring the vintage King Cobra. I will pick up a couple bottles of vintage Wild Irish Rose when I buy my lotto tickets tomorrow morning. Every Rose has it's thorn (dedicated to Purse).
I don't understand why the principal defense of Trump by so many Conservatives is to point their fingers at Hillary. Hey, your guy won. Hillary is irrelevant at this point. Is it more important to investigate whether the POTUS or his team may have colluded with the Russians or that the losing candidate might have? I have no evidence one way or the other and am glad that Bob Mueller is conducting his investigation. If, at the end of the day, Mueller says that Trump is clean, I will accept that and we can all move on. If it turns out that Trump did collude, he should be impeached. There's no point in debating the collusion allegations at this point because none of us have enough information, only opinions.
I think this Russia collusion story is bogus. They have overly investigated it with no evidence. It is political gamesmanship to create havoc. The democrat politians need to grow along with the MSM and stop the BS
Zona,
It is without a doubt bogus ! So is the special counsel who is a close friend of Comey and is hiring
All Democratic lawyers to investigate a Crime that no one has committed. It is equivalent to telling a
Citizen: I know that their is nothing that shows you committed any crime, but we are hiring investigators
Because we know if we check into your background , we will find something illegal that you
Did !
Now if we must do justice, Let's actually prosecute people that actually committed crime like
Leaking and unmasking private citizens who had conversations with foreign governments. Or
Hilary selling our Uranium to Russia and receiving tens of millions of dollars for the " Clinton Foundation."
And Bill Clinton receiving , as a result of Hilary's uranium deal with Russia, millions of dollars
To speak in Russia.
Besides speaking with a foreign Government is not a crime ! There is no Collusion ! One other thing, how does a Community Organizer who gets elected to the Presidency suddenly upon leaving Office become a multimilliare ?
There are real crimes, and they were all committed by Democrates !
It is without a doubt bogus ! So is the special counsel who is a close friend of Comey and is hiring
All Democratic lawyers to investigate a Crime that no one has committed. It is equivalent to telling a
Citizen: I know that their is nothing that shows you committed any crime, but we are hiring investigators
Because we know if we check into your background , we will find something illegal that you
Did !
Now if we must do justice, Let's actually prosecute people that actually committed crime like
Leaking and unmasking private citizens who had conversations with foreign governments. Or
Hilary selling our Uranium to Russia and receiving tens of millions of dollars for the " Clinton Foundation."
And Bill Clinton receiving , as a result of Hilary's uranium deal with Russia, millions of dollars
To speak in Russia.
Besides speaking with a foreign Government is not a crime ! There is no Collusion ! One other thing, how does a Community Organizer who gets elected to the Presidency suddenly upon leaving Office become a multimilliare ?
There are real crimes, and they were all committed by Democrates !
"Hilary selling our Uranium to Russia and receiving tens of millions of dollars for the " Clinton Foundation."
Sigh. This gets repeated by conservatives over and over and over and over . . .
Just a few facts:
1. The State Department was one of nine on a committee of U.S. agencies (the Secretary of the Treasury was the committee chairman) that could recommend or not recommend to the US president the sale of Uranium One, the company that controlled the interest in the uranium at issue. Have you ever been on a panel of nine? If you have, you know that you can't get much done without a lot of support from others on the panel, and it was no different for the State Department in this case. Moreover, there is not any evidence that HRC even attended the committee meetings, as matters such as this are normally delegated to subordinates.
2. Frank Guistra, the business magnate that donated $130 million to the Clinton Foundation, did so years after he sold all of his interest in Uranium One in 2007. So he received nothing from the deal. I suppose you could argue that that there was a quid pro quo between Guistra and HRC for something else, but it can't be for this uranium sale, as the timing just doesn't add up.
3. Finally, the uranium transferred wasn't even U.S. uranium. Most of what was held by Uranium One was located in other countries (ironically, a lot of it in the former Soviet Republic of Kazakhstan). With respect to the uranium in the US, by law, all uranium held in US facilities or locations could not be transferred or exported, and would remain under the control of US interests, so in fact no US uranium left the US for Russia or anywhere else.
So to sum up, it is absurd to say HRC sold 20% of US uranium reserves to the Russians, because a) she didn't have the slightest authority to do so; b) there is no evidence she ever tried to do so, and c) the uranium transferred was never US uranium to begin with.
http://www.snopes.com/hillary-clinton-uranium-russia-deal/
Yes, then I guess that you are saying that Guistra was just a wonderful nice guy who loved the Clinton foundation, and out of the goodness of his heart decided to "Donate 130 mil to the Clintons.
And the Russians just love to hear the sound of Bill's voice so much that they doubled Bill's
Speaking fees in Moscow ?
Or perhaps Guistra , more probable ,was the guy who was the "laundry man" who cleaned the money before it went To the Clinton foundation ?
You can believe whatever you like, that is your right ! But the story smells to high heaven to me !
And the Russians just love to hear the sound of Bill's voice so much that they doubled Bill's
Speaking fees in Moscow ?
Or perhaps Guistra , more probable ,was the guy who was the "laundry man" who cleaned the money before it went To the Clinton foundation ?
You can believe whatever you like, that is your right ! But the story smells to high heaven to me !
Well, I offered evidence with a corroborating link, and you offered speculation. Others here can decide which approach seems the most credible to them.
At the very least, I hope you now understand that the US uranium supply was not compromised in any way by this transaction, as you earlier suggested.
Have a good rest of the day, rgc.
Hayaka,
I know that you are a fair minded person, and I would like to ask you a personal favor !
I did want to also to post a link , but I am not very computer savvy. The link is from a very Liberal
Newspaper, The New York Times, the article : "Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation amid Russian
Uranium Deal". The article is by Jo Becker and Mike McIntire , Published April 23, 2015.
I think that the article covers the whole deal in great detail, so if you would be so kind and post it,
I believe that our board members will then have a very balance and greatly detailed story of the whole question that we are now debating.
Thanking you in advance!
I know that you are a fair minded person, and I would like to ask you a personal favor !
I did want to also to post a link , but I am not very computer savvy. The link is from a very Liberal
Newspaper, The New York Times, the article : "Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation amid Russian
Uranium Deal". The article is by Jo Becker and Mike McIntire , Published April 23, 2015.
I think that the article covers the whole deal in great detail, so if you would be so kind and post it,
I believe that our board members will then have a very balance and greatly detailed story of the whole question that we are now debating.
Thanking you in advance!
Last edited:
Zona ,
I know that Hayaka wants all the facts presented , so I am sure that he will post the link that I gave
Him for all the Board Members to see for themselves. Since the Article is from The New York Times,
I certain believe that it is " Fair and Balanced" , so our Liberal friends should certainly have no problem
Both posting the article and certainly reading all the factual material ?
I know that Hayaka wants all the facts presented , so I am sure that he will post the link that I gave
Him for all the Board Members to see for themselves. Since the Article is from The New York Times,
I certain believe that it is " Fair and Balanced" , so our Liberal friends should certainly have no problem
Both posting the article and certainly reading all the factual material ?
rgc:
Here is the article:
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/...d-for-control-of-uranium-company.html?mcubz=2
I see nothing in it that refutes the two central points I made:
1. Authority to Approve the Sale: The State Department and HRC did not have the authority to approve or reject the sale. They were simply one vote among nine. Moreover, the authors are negligent in failing to even mention that the committee's role is only advisory. President Obama was the only one that could approve the deal.
2. US Uranium Could Not Leave the Country: The article does briefly mention the prohibition against transferring US uranium out of the country:
"The Nuclear Regulatory Commission wrote to Mr. Barrasso assuring him that American uranium would be preserved for domestic use, regardless of who owned it."
However the authors never pursue the significance of this statement, and gloss over the fact that it means unless laws are broken, the Russians can never use US uranium for their own purposes, including military purposes. Most likely, the Russians were never all that interested in the US uranium in the first place, and were much more concerned with the larger Kazakh supply.
The article also doesn't put two and two together on the timing with respect to Giustra, i.e. that he had no interest in Uranium One by the time he donated to the Clinton Foundation, and thus could not benefit from the US approving the sale.
All in all, the worst that you can say about this is that some people associated with Uranium One donated money to the Clinton Foundation (and that CF's record-keeping as to the donations was sloppy), although the vast majority of the donated funds came from Guistra, who as mentioned no longer had an interest in the company at the time of the sale or at the time of the donations to CF. On the more important points, that 1) HRC did not have the authority to approve or reject this deal and there is no evidence she ever tried to do so, and 2) that the US uranium could never be taken out of the US by Uranium One no matter who owned the company, the article does not dispute those points.
Here is the article:
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/...d-for-control-of-uranium-company.html?mcubz=2
I see nothing in it that refutes the two central points I made:
1. Authority to Approve the Sale: The State Department and HRC did not have the authority to approve or reject the sale. They were simply one vote among nine. Moreover, the authors are negligent in failing to even mention that the committee's role is only advisory. President Obama was the only one that could approve the deal.
2. US Uranium Could Not Leave the Country: The article does briefly mention the prohibition against transferring US uranium out of the country:
"The Nuclear Regulatory Commission wrote to Mr. Barrasso assuring him that American uranium would be preserved for domestic use, regardless of who owned it."
However the authors never pursue the significance of this statement, and gloss over the fact that it means unless laws are broken, the Russians can never use US uranium for their own purposes, including military purposes. Most likely, the Russians were never all that interested in the US uranium in the first place, and were much more concerned with the larger Kazakh supply.
The article also doesn't put two and two together on the timing with respect to Giustra, i.e. that he had no interest in Uranium One by the time he donated to the Clinton Foundation, and thus could not benefit from the US approving the sale.
All in all, the worst that you can say about this is that some people associated with Uranium One donated money to the Clinton Foundation (and that CF's record-keeping as to the donations was sloppy), although the vast majority of the donated funds came from Guistra, who as mentioned no longer had an interest in the company at the time of the sale or at the time of the donations to CF. On the more important points, that 1) HRC did not have the authority to approve or reject this deal and there is no evidence she ever tried to do so, and 2) that the US uranium could never be taken out of the US by Uranium One no matter who owned the company, the article does not dispute those points.
Last edited:
Comrade Trumpsky is a liar and a traitor. FACT. Anyone who supports the fake president is a moron and a traitor. FACT. Jimmy Kimmel said the Trumpsky family is like the Corleones if they were all Fredo. LOL.
Hayaka,
Thank you for posting the article, and I hope that the Board Members will read the whole article.
Of course, you have selected sections that reenforce your point of view.
Here are a few other quotes: " Uranium Investors gave millions to the Clinton Foundation while Sec of State H R Clinton was involved in approving a Russian bid for mining assets in Kazakhstan and the
USA. "
" The deal was strategically important to Mr. Putin , who shortly after the Americans gave their blessing, he sat down for a staged interview with Rosaton's Chief Executive Sergei Kiriyenko.
" Few could have imagined in the past that we would own 20 % of United States reserves ! ",
Mr Kiriyenko told Mr. Putin.
I disagree with you that the article does not disprove your points, but no sense " debating "
This to death ! I think the board members can read the article and decide for themselves!
Thanks for posting the reference . Always fun posting with you !
Thank you for posting the article, and I hope that the Board Members will read the whole article.
Of course, you have selected sections that reenforce your point of view.
Here are a few other quotes: " Uranium Investors gave millions to the Clinton Foundation while Sec of State H R Clinton was involved in approving a Russian bid for mining assets in Kazakhstan and the
USA. "
" The deal was strategically important to Mr. Putin , who shortly after the Americans gave their blessing, he sat down for a staged interview with Rosaton's Chief Executive Sergei Kiriyenko.
" Few could have imagined in the past that we would own 20 % of United States reserves ! ",
Mr Kiriyenko told Mr. Putin.
I disagree with you that the article does not disprove your points, but no sense " debating "
This to death ! I think the board members can read the article and decide for themselves!
Thanks for posting the reference . Always fun posting with you !
How is it "without a doubt" bogus? Mueller is almost universally respected by politicians, Democrats and Republicans, not named Trump or working directly for Trump. He will conduct a very thorough investigation and I'm amazed and proud of the fact that there have been no leaks from his investigation. Accordingly, rgc, I would hope that you would hold off on your proclamation of Trump's innocence.
As to the Uranium sale, this was well covered by hayaka so I won't repeat his arguments.
There have certainly been crimes committed but not just by Democrats. There are a lot of dirty politicians out there.
I don't think there is any doubt that the Russians attempted to interfere with the 2016 election. All of the intelligence chiefs believe that and they have much better info than either you or me. If this is the case, isn't it most logical, and in our best interests as a nation, to find out if POTUS is involved? I'm not saying he is or he isn't as I just don't have enough information. I do want to find out though and while I have a great deal of respect for you, I'm not quite ready to just accept your proclamation that the investigation is bogus.
Give it up Duck. You can't reason with moron Trumpsky supporters. They came up with fake truth to cover for their fake treasonous president.
Bodizephax
I've posted how many times?
You must be friends with the other Ginger--SeanPoll355-- You both think about Trump 24/7
