ImTheCaptain
I disagree with you
OBL wins again.
so wait, is it Obummer or Bin Ladin
U.S. sold uranium mine to Russia; Cash Flowed into Clinton Foundation
- Thread starter deacondamo
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
so wait, is it Obummer or Bin Ladin
TheTwinAndreBen
3 stacks
Not only that, it's a giant nothing burger. Really, really reaching to connect dots. Their own timeline shows that. If anything the Clintons helped a Canadian company buy a major Russian Uranium stake, a big coup for the US at the time.
The real (unreported) story is who sat on the foreign investment committee and voted to approve the deal. Those are the real people at fault. All of that info is completely public and the article doesnt even go there. Shoddy, shoddy work. Really unbelievable how dumb and lazy reporting has become, even at the highest levels.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/04/23/us/clinton-foundation-donations-uranium-investors.html
marquee moon
Banhammer'd
- Joined
- Mar 10, 2011
- Messages
- 31,882
- Reaction score
- 2,091
who knew you are a Hill Shill
TownieDeac
words are futile devices
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2011
- Messages
- 76,189
- Reaction score
- 16,925
Then why not disclose the donations?
ImTheCaptain
I disagree with you
#nothingburger
deacondamo
El Jefe
DeaconSig
Well-known member
What's the takeaway? That the Clintons took a bribe to make sure that the Russians could take our uranium? Really?
"The Russians rapid-onset love affair with Canadian charities with coincidental back-door ties to the Clinton Foundation" explanation didn't fly?
TheTwinAndreBen
3 stacks
What do you mean? That you don't know what the word committee means? Do you mean that Hillary sat on the committee or a lesser member of the State Dept.? Do you mean that you know how many votes it takes to approve an action? Do you mean you know who else was on the committee and how they voted?
What do you mean?
deacondamo
El Jefe
The article said that the State Dept (headed by her at the time) signed off on the deal. Assuming the article is true, her department signed off on the deal. In my opinion, she should not be given the benefit of plausible deniability because an underling may have been involved in the process. Especially given the fact that the Clinton Foundation was getting multiple millions in donations from the guy trying to sell his company to the Russians (during the period in which the deal was under review).
Nothing to see here.
It's a committee from Federal agencies and departments
TheTwinAndreBen
3 stacks
Right, but you don't know what 'signed off on the deal' means. And that is important.
I do think it is important to know if she knew about it, and if so, what she thought about it at the time, but it sounds like she couldnt not have pushed it through by herself. We dont know who else was on that committee and how they approve sales. That is the failure of the article, if they really wanted a smoking gun they would have investigated that. Who was involved, and who knew what at the time. Surely the committee is bi-partisan and someone would talk.
The fact that they didnt go there and the weak, meandering timeline that would require you to connect dots extending over a decade, leads me to believe that there is nothing here.
I do think it is important to know if she knew about it, and if so, what she thought about it at the time, but it sounds like she couldnt not have pushed it through by herself. We dont know who else was on that committee and how they approve sales. That is the failure of the article, if they really wanted a smoking gun they would have investigated that. Who was involved, and who knew what at the time. Surely the committee is bi-partisan and someone would talk.
The fact that they didnt go there and the weak, meandering timeline that would require you to connect dots extending over a decade, leads me to believe that there is nothing here.
TownieDeac
words are futile devices
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2011
- Messages
- 76,189
- Reaction score
- 16,925
I feel like the entire problem could have been avoided if she just reported the donations as per the agreement with the Obama administration.
It's kind of emblematic of the larger transparency problems with her campaign--just be transparent or get ahead of things like this and the email nothingburger and you'll be fine.
It's kind of emblematic of the larger transparency problems with her campaign--just be transparent or get ahead of things like this and the email nothingburger and you'll be fine.
P4nthers11
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 20, 2011
- Messages
- 2,101
- Reaction score
- 202
"Even if Clinton had wanted to make sure the sale was approved, it wouldn’t have been possible for her to do it on her own. CFIUS is made up of not only the Secretary of State, but also the secretaries of Treasury, Justice, Homeland Security, Commerce, Defense, and Energy, as well as the heads of the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative and the Office of Science and Technology Policy. The Director of National Intelligence and the Secretary of Labor are non-voting members, and CFIUS’s work is also observed by representatives of other agencies like the National Security Council and the Office of Management and Budget. The idea that Clinton could have convinced all those officials and all those departments to change their position on the sale, even if she had wanted to, borders on the absurd."
link
link
TheTwinAndreBen
3 stacks
Composition of CFIUS
The Secretary of the Treasury is the Chairperson of CFIUS, and notices to CFIUS are received, processed, and coordinated at the staff level by the Staff Chairperson of CFIUS, who is the Director of the Office of Investment Security in the Department of the Treasury.
The members of CFIUS include the heads of the following departments and offices:
Department of the Treasury (chair)
Department of Justice
Department of Homeland Security
Department of Commerce
Department of Defense
Department of State
Department of Energy
Office of the U.S. Trade Representative
Office of Science & Technology Policy
The following offices also observe and, as appropriate, participate in CFIUS’s activities:
Office of Management & Budget
Council of Economic Advisors
National Security Council
National Economic Council
Homeland Security Council
The Director of National Intelligence and the Secretary of Labor are non-voting, ex-officio members of CFIUS with roles as defined by statute and regulation.
So Geithner, as Sec. of Treasury, was the chair of the committee. Representatives from the DoD, the DoJ and Homeland Security also sit on the committee. The Secretary of State, as a civics lesson to mouthbreathers, deals primarily in foreign relations, not national security.
- Joined
- Mar 25, 2011
- Messages
- 23,314
- Reaction score
- 6,431
This is some pretty fringe dot connecting. The only real issue here is she failed to disclose the donors. Biiiiig fucking shock that a person who took extraordinary steps to circumvent email transparency requirements would also fail to disclose this.
Meh.
Meh.
TheTwinAndreBen
3 stacks
Agreed. There are legitimate questions about her, her campaign transparency, and the Clinton Foundation. Those questions are obfuscated though by right wingers and glory seeking reporters trying to string things together that simply aren't there. It takes away from the credibility of the question asker, and really misses on a chance to nail her for an actual, smaller malfeasance.
There is also the chicken and the egg argument, which postulates that after a decade of putting up with the loonies trying to create conspiracy after conspiracy out of everything she does, she's learned to master the game, and not let any chum hit the water that absolutely doesn't have to be there.
sailordeac
Well-known member
dysfunctional or corrupt, take your pick
One of those candidates provides both.