Uranium One deal looks like a whole can of worms about to open up.

[SunsetBengal]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5017499/Trump-calls-Russian-uranium-deal-Watergate-modern-age.html

Quote:Two House committees announced a probe Tuesday of the uranium deal that the Obama administration green-lit while an entity at the center of the charges was reportedly under federal investigation. The Senate Judiciary Committee also has a probe going.
Devin Nunes, the Republican who heads the House Intelligence Committee, said his investigation will seek to determine whether there was an FBI probe in progress at the time of the deal, and, if so, why Congress was not notified.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5017499/Trump-calls-Russian-uranium-deal-Watergate-modern-age.html#ixzz4wYAL6t1w
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

This is big stuff. If inappropriate activities are found, the list of names under scrutiny could be huge, even possibly forever tarnishing former President Obama's legacy.

[*bfine32*]

(10-25-2017, 04:35 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5017499/Trump-calls-Russian-uranium-deal-Watergate-modern-age.html



This is big stuff.  If inappropriate activities are found, the list of names under scrutiny could be huge, even possibly forever tarnishing former President Obama's legacy.

Clinton oversaw this one so it is most definitely on the up and up. Remember she's the honest candidate that lost. 


On the 4realz: If the intent was to help the Country then I applaud them for trying. We as the public demand too much transparency. Sometimes it is best not to look behind the curtain.

[Belsnickel]

(10-25-2017, 04:43 PM)bfine32 Wrote: On the 4realz: If the intent was to help the Country then I applaud them for trying. We as the public demand too much transparency. Sometimes it is best not to look behind the curtain.

We just don't trust our government anymore. It's been a growing thing for decades and certain political factions foment this. Not without some justification, though.

[JustWinBaby]

(10-25-2017, 04:35 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: ....even possibly forever tarnishing former President Obama's legacy.

One, not possible.

Two, not going to be much of a legacy left in another 12 months.

[JustWinBaby]

(10-25-2017, 04:56 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: We just don't trust our government anymore. It's been a growing thing for decades and certain political factions foment this. Not without some justification, though.

I'd agree with Bfine that we probably don't always want to know how the sausage is made.

Otherwise, I blame the partisan media.  Depending on who did what, you go to the liberal media for 1 side of the story and Fox for the other side, and after you figure out which facts are conceded by both sides you start to get a feel for the real story.

[Bengalzona]

To my understanding, the uranium deal was a deal for a Russian company to take a controlling interest in a U.S. uranium extraction company. The company handles about 20% of the U.S. uranium extraction. The deal was approved because because it only involved the extraction of uranium and not the export of it (i.e. no uranium was shipped to Russia).

The announced Congressional inquiries are whether the Russian company was under an FBI probe at the time of the deal. And that, to me, seems like the type of thing you learn from a request for information from the agency rather than a horse and pony show.

Sounds like deflection to me.

[BmorePat87]

The NYT and WSJ revealed all of this 2 years ago.

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-foundation-as-russians-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html
https://www.wsj.com/articles/fbi-probes-suspected-bribery-in-russian-uranium-sales-to-u-s-1430427559

All the Hill did was regurgitate it all, give it a click bait headline, and then push a conspiracy theory full of holes. They're arguing that there's a DOJ attempt to cover this up in order to protect Hillary, despite the DOJ prosecuting him 3 years ago. The try to suggest the DOJ didn't make a big deal out of it, but even they admit that the DOJ issued multiple statements regarding it, along with other departments commenting on it.


I mean, it worked. Every single conservative media outlet is running with it. It's just really funny seeing Republicans rush to waste money on investigations over things that they should have known about in 2015.

[NATI BENGALS]

(10-25-2017, 06:35 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: The NYT and WSJ revealed all of this 2 years ago.

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-foundation-as-russians-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html
https://www.wsj.com/articles/fbi-probes-suspected-bribery-in-russian-uranium-sales-to-u-s-1430427559

All the Hill did was regurgitate it all, give it a click bait headline, and then push a conspiracy theory full of holes. They're arguing that there's a DOJ attempt to cover this up in order to protect Hillary, despite the DOJ prosecuting him 3 years ago. The try to suggest the DOJ didn't make a big deal out of it, but even they admit that the DOJ issued multiple statements regarding it, along with other departments commenting on it.


I mean, it worked. Every single conservative media outlet is running with it. It's just really funny seeing Republicans rush to waste money on investigations over things that they should have known about in 2015.

That is how the game is played. 

Get the big distraction going. Then ass rape the lower and middle class. 

How else do you expect them to get tax cuts for the rich when wealth distribution is already lopsided as hell?

[Belsnickel]

(10-25-2017, 05:03 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: I'd agree with Bfine that we probably don't always want to know how the sausage is made.

Otherwise, I blame the partisan media.  Depending on who did what, you go to the liberal media for 1 side of the story and Fox for the other side, and after you figure out which facts are conceded by both sides you start to get a feel for the real story.

I don't disagree with any of this. I just think that the desire for increased transparency is the result of people in government telling us not to trust the government. Again, plenty of things have occurred to justify distrust, but it complicates things a bit.

[Griever]

not to mention, how many other agencies did it go through?

distraction is distraction

[StLucieBengal]

(10-25-2017, 04:56 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: We just don't trust our government anymore. It's been a growing thing for decades and certain political factions foment this. Not without some justification, though.

We shouldn’t be trusting the government. They are too involved in our lives with too much power.