Quote: @"JimmyinSD" said:
did or did not hillary as secretary of state authorize uranium sales to russia?
On uranium: This references Russia’s nuclear power agency buying a controlling interest in a Toronto-based company. That company has mines, mills and tracts of land in Wyoming, Utah and other U.S. states equal to about 20 percent of U.S. uranium production capacity (not produced uranium).Clinton was secretary of state at the time, but she didn’t have the power to approve or reject the deal. The State Department was only one of nine federal agencies that signed off on the deal, and only President Barack Obama had the power to veto it. - Politifact.
Quote: @"MaroonBells" said:
@"JimmyinSD" said:
did or did not hillary as secretary of state authorize uranium sales to russia?
On uranium: This references Russia’s nuclear power agency buying a controlling interest in a Toronto-based company. That company has mines, mills and tracts of land in Wyoming, Utah and other U.S. states equal to about 20 percent of U.S. uranium production capacity (not produced uranium).Clinton was secretary of state at the time, but she didn’t have the power to approve or reject the deal. The State Department was only one of nine federal agencies that signed off on the deal, and only President Barack Obama had the power to veto it. - Politifact.
You forgot to add the part about the massive donations to the clinton foundation by the partners that arranges the deal...oh yeah and isn't it the state departments job to raise red flags over deals like this that concern national security with forein threats. ...not profit from them?
Quote: @"JimmyinSD" said:
You forgot to add the part about the massive donations to the clinton foundation by the partners that arranges the deal...oh yeah and isn't it the state departments job to raise red flags over deals like this that concern national security with forein threats. ...not profit from them?
As we explained in our story at the time, Clinton was one of nine government officials to make up the Committee on Foreign Investments in the United States, which is required by law to investigate all U.S. transactions that involve a company owned or controlled by a foreign government. Committee members include the secretaries of the Treasury, Defense, Homeland Security, Commerce and Energy, the attorney general, and representatives from two White House offices — the United States Trade Representative and the Office of Science and Technology Policy.
The committee can’t actually stop a sale from going through — it can only approve a sale. The president is the only one who can stop a sale, if the committee or any one member “recommends suspension or prohibition of the transaction,” according to guidelines issued by the Treasury Department in December 2008 after the department adopted its final rule a month earlier.
So, Clinton could have objected — as could the eight other voting members — but that objection alone wouldn’t have stopped the sale of the stake of Uranium One to Rosatom. “Only the President has the authority to suspend or prohibit a covered transaction,” the federal guidelines say.
And the president would need to have “credible evidence,” the guidelines say, that the “foreign interest exercising control might take action that threatens to impair the national security.” In 2010, when the deal was finalized, “the geopolitical backdrop was far different from today’s,” the Times notes, as the U.S. wanted to “reset” relations with Russia. - Factcheck.
Clintons don't profit from the Clinton Foundation.
So Russia was up Obama's ass as much as he was the Clinton's, does that change the fact that she approved of the deal and was financially rewarded by it?. It is was it is, they are the ones enabling the Russian resurgence and profiting from it, but fuck let's burn some crosses because the losing team is having a tantrum...and let's try and deflect the people's anger.
I don't really care for what Trump and the Republicans have done in the last 8 months, but for shit sake let's be honest about the events of the past.
Bungled Collusion is Still Collusion
by Charles Krauthammer
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/...312cf909b6
It’s rather pathetic to hear Trump apologists protesting that it’s no big deal because we Americans are always intervening in other people’s elections, and they in ours. You don’t have to go back to the ’40s and ’50s when the CIA intervened in France and Italy to keep the communists from coming to power. What about the Obama administration’s blatant interference to try to defeat Benjamin Netanyahu in the latest Israeli election? One might even add the work of groups supported by the U.S. during Russian parliamentary elections — the very origin of Vladimir Putin’s deep animus toward Clinton, then secretary of state, whom he accuses of having orchestrated the opposition.
This defense is pathetic for two reasons. First, have the Trumpites not been telling us for six months that no collusion ever happened? And now they say: Sure it happened. So what? Everyone does it.
What’s left of your credibility when you make such a casual about-face?
Second, no, not everyone does it. It’s one thing to be open to opposition research dug up in Indiana. But not dirt from Russia, a hostile foreign power that has repeatedly invaded its neighbors (Georgia, Crimea, eastern Ukraine), that buzzes our planes and ships in international waters, that opposes our every move and objective around the globe. Just last week the Kremlin killed additional U.N. sanctions we were looking to impose on North Korea for its ICBM test.
There is no statute against helping a foreign hostile power meddle in an American election. What Donald Jr. — and Kushner and Manafort — did may not be criminal. But it is not merely stupid. It is also deeply wrong, a fundamental violation of any code of civic honor.
Quote: @"MaroonBells" said:
Bungled Collusion is Still Collusion
by Charles Krauthammer
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/...312cf909b6
It’s rather pathetic to hear Trump apologists protesting that it’s no big deal because we Americans are always intervening in other people’s elections, and they in ours. You don’t have to go back to the ’40s and ’50s when the CIA intervened in France and Italy to keep the communists from coming to power. What about the Obama administration’s blatant interference to try to defeat Benjamin Netanyahu in the latest Israeli election? One might even add the work of groups supported by the U.S. during Russian parliamentary elections — the very origin of Vladimir Putin’s deep animus toward Clinton, then secretary of state, whom he accuses of having orchestrated the opposition.
This defense is pathetic for two reasons. First, have the Trumpites not been telling us for six months that no collusion ever happened? And now they say: Sure it happened. So what? Everyone does it.
What’s left of your credibility when you make such a casual about-face?
Second, no, not everyone does it. It’s one thing to be open to opposition research dug up in Indiana. But not dirt from Russia, a hostile foreign power that has repeatedly invaded its neighbors (Georgia, Crimea, eastern Ukraine), that buzzes our planes and ships in international waters, that opposes our every move and objective around the globe. Just last week the Kremlin killed additional U.N. sanctions we were looking to impose on North Korea for its ICBM test.
There is no statute against helping a foreign hostile power meddle in an American election. What Donald Jr. — and Kushner and Manafort — did may not be criminal. But it is not merely stupid. It is also deeply wrong, a fundamental violation of any code of civic honor.
So NOW Dr Krauthammer's opinion(s) are to be followed/held up as virtuous?
OK, I'll be the first to agree to this (evidence of collusion **cough**)... as long as we let Dr Krauthammer's world-view/politics rule the day.
IOW, I'll throw the Donald under the bus, for an exchange for Dr Krauthammer's "vision for America", in toto. Deal?
Thusly... we get Pence as Prexy and Krauthammer's views rule the commentariat, (sans objection)..... cuz he's now the conservative anti-DJT, of record... even the libs now admit.
(BTW, where were you on Krauthammer's " consensus science?" lol.)
I'll say this, when you want true intellectual debate.... pit Conservative v. Conservative. 
Quote: @"savannahskol" said:
@"MaroonBells" said:
Bungled Collusion is Still Collusion
by Charles Krauthammer
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/...312cf909b6
It’s rather pathetic to hear Trump apologists protesting that it’s no big deal because we Americans are always intervening in other people’s elections, and they in ours. You don’t have to go back to the ’40s and ’50s when the CIA intervened in France and Italy to keep the communists from coming to power. What about the Obama administration’s blatant interference to try to defeat Benjamin Netanyahu in the latest Israeli election? One might even add the work of groups supported by the U.S. during Russian parliamentary elections — the very origin of Vladimir Putin’s deep animus toward Clinton, then secretary of state, whom he accuses of having orchestrated the opposition.
This defense is pathetic for two reasons. First, have the Trumpites not been telling us for six months that no collusion ever happened? And now they say: Sure it happened. So what? Everyone does it.
What’s left of your credibility when you make such a casual about-face?
Second, no, not everyone does it. It’s one thing to be open to opposition research dug up in Indiana. But not dirt from Russia, a hostile foreign power that has repeatedly invaded its neighbors (Georgia, Crimea, eastern Ukraine), that buzzes our planes and ships in international waters, that opposes our every move and objective around the globe. Just last week the Kremlin killed additional U.N. sanctions we were looking to impose on North Korea for its ICBM test.
There is no statute against helping a foreign hostile power meddle in an American election. What Donald Jr. — and Kushner and Manafort — did may not be criminal. But it is not merely stupid. It is also deeply wrong, a fundamental violation of any code of civic honor.
So NOW Dr Krauthammer's opinion(s) are to be followed/held up as virtuous?
OK, I'll be the first to agree to this (evidence of collusion **cough**)... as long as we let Dr Krauthammer's world-view/politics rule the day.
IOW, I'll throw the Donald under the bus, for an exchange for Dr Krauthammer's "vision for America", in toto. Deal?
Thusly... we get Pence as Prexy and Krauthammer's views rule the commentariat, (sans objection)..... cuz he's now the conservative anti-DJT, of record... even the libs now admit.
(BTW, where were you on Krauthammer's " consensus science?" lol.)
I'll say this, when you want true intellectual debate.... pit Conservative v. Conservative.
So is it fair to assume that you find President Trump to be credible?
|
