FBI invgestigation implicates Clinton’s and Obama Administration

[Yojimbo]

Why isn’t/wasn’t this story being broadcast on every news station. This is in connection with the uranium deal that Hilary and Obama signed off on with Russia. For some reason the Russian side that was doing the bribing ($500k speech for Bill and $1.4 mil to the Clinton Foundation) was arrested with the help of the DOJ, yet the people taking the bribes....nothing.

http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/355749-fbi-uncovered-russian-bribery-plot-before-obama-administration

P.S. The Hill is as establishment as they come, weird they would break this story.

[GMDino]

(10-18-2017, 10:07 PM)Yojimbo Wrote: Why isn’t/wasn’t this story being broadcast on every news station. This is in connection with the uranium deal that Hilary and Obama signed off on with Russia. For some reason the Russian side that was doing the bribing ($500k speech for Bill and $1.4 mil to the Clinton Foundation) was arrested with the help of the DOJ, yet the people taking the bribes....nothing.

http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/355749-fbi-uncovered-russian-bribery-plot-before-obama-administration

P.S. The Hill is as establishment as they come, weird they would break this story.

A lot to take in there!

Why was everything kept from the people who could have stopped the deal? Did the money going to the Clinton's get tracked while it was being contributed and did they know?  If not...who not tell them?  If so...why not charge them?

Crazy!

[SunsetBengal]

(10-18-2017, 10:07 PM)Yojimbo Wrote: Why isn’t/wasn’t this story being broadcast on every news station. This is in connection with the uranium deal that Hilary and Obama signed off on with Russia. For some reason the Russian side that was doing the bribing ($500k speech for Bill and $1.4 mil to the Clinton Foundation) was arrested with the help of the DOJ, yet the people taking the bribes....nothing.

http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/355749-fbi-uncovered-russian-bribery-plot-before-obama-administration

P.S. The Hill is as establishment as they come, weird they would break this story.

Because it presents the people they idolize in a negative light.  I'm sad to say it, but the news industry isn't unbiased, in fact they are so heavily to one side that they literally won't run that story.

[GMDino]

(10-18-2017, 10:55 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Because it presents the people they idolize in a negative light.  I'm sad to say it, but the news industry isn't unbiased, in fact they are so heavily to one side that they literally won't run that story.

Much of what is written in the story is about money laundering and kickbacks that do NOT involve Obama and the Clinton's too.  They bring the sexy to the headline but there meat of the story isn't so much about them at this point either.

[StLucieBengal]

Clinton Cash was right.

[SunsetBengal]

(10-18-2017, 11:02 PM)GMDino Wrote: Much of what is written in the story is about money laundering and kickbacks that do NOT involve Obama and the Clinton's too.  They bring the sexy to the headline but there meat of the story isn't so much about them at this point either.

Isn't the real meat of the story the FBI informant that was blocked from sharing any of this with Congress?  It really does implicate the Obama administration, and his DOJ, namely his AG Eric Holder.  They did their level best to keep this story from the public eye, and to do the least to attract any attention to the proceedings, up to and including not even prosecuting the Russians involved until 2014, and not much was ever made about it then, in the mainstream news media.

[GMDino]

(10-18-2017, 11:16 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Isn't the real meat of the story the FBI informant that was blocked from sharing any of this with Congress?  It really does implicate the Obama administration, and his DOJ, namely his AG Eric Holder.  They did their level best to keep this story from the public eye, and to do the least to attract any attention to the proceedings, up to and including not even prosecuting the Russians involved until 2014, and not much was ever made about it then, in the mainstream news media.

That's more what I said in my first response.  Why wasn't this information being passed along and who was blocking it?  Even after the trial people who should have known did not.

If the Clinton's and Obama are dirty they should be in jail for it.  I guess we'll have to see if there is more of an investigation.

[Yojimbo]

(10-18-2017, 10:55 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Because it presents the people they idolize in a negative light.  I'm sad to say it, but the news industry isn't unbiased, in fact they are so heavily to one side that they literally won't run that story.

It was actually a rhetorical question. I know/agree our media giants are as corrupt/complicit as our politicians.

(10-18-2017, 11:16 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Isn't the real meat of the story the FBI informant that was blocked from sharing any of this with Congress?  It really does implicate the Obama administration, and his DOJ, namely his AG Eric Holder.  They did their level best to keep this story from the public eye, and to do the least to attract any attention to the proceedings, up to and including not even prosecuting the Russians involved until 2014, and not much was ever made about it then, in the mainstream news media.

(10-18-2017, 11:23 PM)GMDino Wrote: That's more what I said in my first response.  Why wasn't this information being passed along and who was blocking it?  Even after the trial people who should have known did not.

If the Clinton's and Obama are dirty they should be in jail for it.  I guess we'll have to see if there is more of an investigation.

Yes and yes. Why was it still kept silent even after the op and investigation were over? The logical answer is because somebody/s in power would be implicated.

[GMDino]

(10-18-2017, 11:29 PM)Yojimbo Wrote: It was actually a rhetorical question. I know/agree our media giants are as corrupt/complicit as our politicians.



Yes and yes. Why was it still kept silent even after the op and investigation were over? The logical answer is because somebody/s in power would be implicated.

Then THOSE people who kept it silent should be prosecuted too...

[Yojimbo]

(10-18-2017, 11:30 PM)GMDino Wrote: Then THOSE people who kept it silent should be prosecuted too...

Or at the very least, step one, hauled in front of congress and questioned under oath.

[SunsetBengal]

(10-18-2017, 11:38 PM)Yojimbo Wrote: Or at the very least, step one hauled in front of congress and questioned under oath.

You're right, this is huge.  The American public needs to know about it.  However, the biased mainstream media absolutely refuses to run stories that show the Democrat Party in any sort of negative light.  Even after this FBI confidential has come forward, they will continue to bury their collective heads in the sand, and pretend that it isn't real.

[Dill]

(10-18-2017, 11:52 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: You're right, this is huge.  The American public needs to know about it.  However, the biased mainstream media absolutely refuses to run stories that show the Democrat Party in any sort of negative light.  Even after this FBI confidential has come forward, they will continue to bury their collective heads in the sand, and pretend that it isn't real.

Sunset, I have often heard the "liberal bias" claim on Fox News, but I fear the liberal press did not get the memo regarding the Clintons.

http://www.curvemag.com/News/The-New-York-Times-versus-Hillary-Clinton-623/
https://www.good.is/articles/hillary-clinton-negative-press
https://www.good.is/articles/hillary-clinton-negative-press

It’s no secret that, from the moment she announced her candidacy back in April 2015, Hillary Clinton has been bludgeoned by negative media coverage. The email server; the Wall Street speaking fees; the attacks from both Trump and Sanders. I’ve debated with people who legitimately fear she will be imprisoned before the election. Some, despite the venomous dismissal of my rolling eyes, have called her a murderer. Others: an old woman, a plutocrat, a crook, abused by her husband, no backbone to speak of. But if you’ve suspected that there’s a reason people are saying these things—perhaps parroting disproportionately negative stories they’ve consumed in the media over the past year-and-a-half—it turns out you’re right.

A new report released this week by Harvard Kennedy School’s Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics, and Public Policy found Clinton has received far more negative coverage than any other candidate in the race thus far. The study was based on an analysis of news statements from CBS, Fox, the Los Angeles Times, NBC, the New York Times, USA Today, the Wall Street Journal, and the Washington Post.

[Benton]

Few things.

1.

Quote:“The Russians were compromising American contractors in the nuclear industry with kickbacks and extortion threats, all of which raised legitimate national security concerns. And none of that evidence got aired before the Obama administration made those decisions,” a person who worked on the case told The Hill, speaking on condition of anonymity for fear of retribution by U.S. or Russian officials.

The Obama administration’s decision to approve Rosatom’s purchase of Uranium One has been a source of political controversy since 2015.

While the headline is good and salacious, there doesn't seem to be any connection to Obama and very little to Clinton. And if we learned anything from Obama's time in office, it's doubtful he knew what was happening.

2.

Quote:The lack of fanfare left many key players in Washington with no inkling that a major Russian nuclear corruption scheme with serious national security implications had been uncovered.

Two things. One, why would it be a surprise to anyone outside of the nuclear regulatory agencies? This is corruption in the Russian system more so than the American system.

3. Clinton may have done it. But it's like Benghazi. Or Russians working with the Trumps. Or all the other allegations that have been around for years. Prove it. If all we're going to do is just rehash the same information, it's pointless.

[Dill]

(10-18-2017, 11:23 PM)GMDino Wrote: That's more what I said in my first response.  Why wasn't this information being passed along and who was blocking it?  Even after the trial people who should have known did not.

If the Clinton's and Obama are dirty they should be in jail for it.  I guess we'll have to see if there is more of an investigation.

If there is some "there" there, then it should surely come out now that Republicans control all three branches of government and are badly in need of distraction from White House chaos.

(10-18-2017, 11:29 PM)Yojimbo Wrote: Yes and yes. Why was it still kept silent even after the op and investigation were over? The logical answer is because somebody/s in power would be implicated.

Perhaps we will discover that this bribery was occurring during the Iran deal, and Obama backed off antagonizing the Russians, since he needed their cooperation. Most seems to have occurred before the Ukraine issue in 2014.

But I may be missing excessive secrecy here. The FBI put a guy in jail for two years and made a public announcement to that effect.  All this while the rightwing noise machine was crawling all over the Clinton's and their Russian connections.

Not clear to me that the press has failed or a conspiracy was afoot. Fox will work up some innuendo. Let's see if the NYT or WaPo investigate.

[GMDino]

(10-18-2017, 11:38 PM)Yojimbo Wrote: Or at the very least, step one, hauled in front of congress and questioned under oath.

I'm just finding it hard to believe that the same GOP that did so many Benghazi investigations didn't want this public during the election. Maybe I'm missing something.

[GMDino]

(10-19-2017, 12:16 AM)Benton Wrote: Few things.

1.

While the headline is good and salacious, there doesn't seem to be any connection to Obama and very little to Clinton. And if we learned anything from Obama's time in office, it's doubtful he knew what was happening.

2.

Two things. One, why would it be a surprise to anyone outside of the nuclear regulatory agencies? This is corruption in the Russian system more so than the American system.

3. Clinton may have done it. But it's like Benghazi. Or Russians working with the Trumps. Or all the other allegations that have been around for years. Prove it. If all we're going to do is just rehash the same information, it's pointless.

You said it better than me.

Also even Drudge isn't red headlining it yet.

That's curious.

[BmorePat87]

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-foundation-as-russians-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html

Clinton's donations were revealed before the election cycle even started.

I guess the only news is the FBI was investigating this at the time but never made anyone aware of the extent of it for years. How much did Holder or Obama know?

[*Nately120*]

Can we give a 3rd party a serious glance finally?

[Belsnickel]

(10-19-2017, 08:59 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: https://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-foundation-as-russians-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html

Clinton's donations were revealed before the election cycle even started.

I guess the only news is the FBI was investigating this at the time but never made anyone aware of the extent of it for years. How much did Holder or Obama know?

And if we learned anything after the fiasco last year, it is that it is not FBI SOP to comment on whether or not something is being investigated while it is being investigated.

[Benton]

(10-19-2017, 08:59 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: https://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-foundation-as-russians-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html

Clinton's donations were revealed before the election cycle even started.

I guess the only news is the FBI was investigating this at the time but never made anyone aware of the extent of it for years. How much did Holder or Obama know?

Good article on the issue.

I will add a little different perspective. I live about 30 miles from USEC's Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant. USEC, over the last 10 years, has been consolidating and shutting down plants, including ours. Why? Because uranium enrichment isn't profitable. PGD was burning through around 3,000 megawatts of coal (which is a lot) to produce enriched uranium, which no one wanted to buy.

I don't think having Russia in control of any percentage of our uranium is a good thing, and that should've been held up by the regulatory agencies. On the other hand, outside of making bombs, enriched uranium isn't a very profitable business. USEC was only able to keep going as long as it did because of the flow of government money trying to make nuclear power work. Even private sector resources never lived up to the hype.