It's not over yet Ed. There may be a deal in the works. Wherein he will do it on live TV while blaming the "nasty Republicans for ruining my life." Hey, the Progs have obviously been in bed with the suicide bombing people for so long, it is not unlikely that some of their incentives may have rubbed off. Lie in bed with dogs, get up with fleas.
This could also be the route out for Marc Elias, the Lawyer who bought the Pee-Pee Dosier from Fusion GPS on behalf of the Clinton campaign and DNC. Take one for the eam Marc and we'll make sure your estate is secured. Stay tuned.
That is the form true fascism takes to fund (supplied by its the crony corporations such as book publishers, themselves critical members of the propaganda agencies) its various sticks who, in turn, are bound to the axe handle you see on any fasces image. The [scratch] Left [insert] Sinister continue to claim to hate fascism even as they engage in it.
What's amazing is how the useful idiot libs either refuse to see the pattern or simply have no knowledge of history because they've been dumbed-down so much by the education agency (also working to achieve the opposite of its label)
BTW, libs should note that I always differentiate them from the Sinister. They remain convinced that because the [scratch] Left knows the right words that sound liberal that they are also liberal. So many libs have now themselves become victims of the radicals one would think more libs would start to get wise.
I'll be interested to see how any criminal or unethical dealings Hillary may have had in relation to the Uranium deal, swayed the other 8 votes. That's the critical piece of information I haven't yet seen. Of course, I'm not currently watching any TV [especially Fox News], so I just may not have heard any evidence that exists.
So far the whole thing smacks of shiny objects being dangled in front of the fringe right bas.
First we have Vadim Milkerin who is, I believe, the "secret informant" ( woo, scary) and was bribed by an American uranium transport company to get the haulage business. The transport company paid for the bribes by hiking their fees so it amounts to a simple embezzlement plot. Your task is to try to attach the Clintons to this simple example of corruption.
Then there are the foundation donations. Ninety percent of the donations came from Frank Giustra or his wife. Problem is that Giustra had completely divested his interest in the company four years before the sale and nearly two years before Clinton became secretary. Not too damning.
The deal hasn't worked out well for Russia as uranium prices are down over 60% since Fukushima.
The phony angle that Russia is exporting 20% of American uranium is also nonsense since export is controlled. The power brokers dangled this set of shiny keys in a similar scandal when they lied through heir teeth about l'affaire Plame.
CI. I don't understand your comment about especially not watching Fox News. I find it to be more trustful then CNN and certainly MSNBC. Of course, Hannity needs to be taken with a grain of salt. Doesn't make him wrong though on the majority of what he discloses.
My comment on Fox [beating this drum 24/7] is largely irrelevant...I'm not sure why you keyed in on that when I made a specific point about Clinton's alleged involvement.
For the record though, I wouldn't trust Hannity to tell me the sky is blue, anymore than you would trust Maddow or any of the other sock puppets. They not only thrive on political theater, it's the business model. None of them are to be trusted.
Whether or not Clinton took money for her vote, how did that [as it seems the Right is alleging] sway the other 8 votes on the Committee on Foreign Investments in the United States? The breathless reporting from certain sectors in our political theater, would have the populace believe that the thumbs up or down was entirely on Clinton's shoulders. That would be......"fake news".
"why you keyed in on that". It stuck out as if they were more distrustful to you than the rest and I wondered why. As to the other 7? I assume they were under pressure from the administration or Clinton. She may have bribed them or threatened them with suicide. Other than that, I don't know.
Mueller and his team of do nothing but collect a lot of our money need to be discredited right now with extreme prejudice. He was in the think of this !
A Pravda article in 2013 hailed Mr. Putin as having conquered the nuclear energy world. This was after Rosatom, one of the world’s largest producers of uranium, purchased the Canadian company known as Uranium One. The leaders of the Canadian mining industry have funneled millions into the Clinton Foundation. Is it merely a coincidence, then, that Uranium One was granted an export license during the Obama administration? Possibly. Never-the-less, Pravda is excited that Russia now controls one-fifth of all uranium production in the US and the fact remains that between 2009 and 2013, Uranium One’s chairman use his family foundations to make four donations totaling $2.5 million to the Clintons. These contributions, by the way, were among those that an “accounting error” failed to disclose, which violated Hillary’s agreement with her boss while serving as SecState. And it was only a short time after Russia announced its intention to purchase Uranium One when Billy Clinton received a half-million dollar speaking engagement.
It is also interesting to me that our knowledge of these transactions was revealed by author Peter Schweizer (Clinton Cash), facts which the NYT independently verified. Were there any violations of law in any of this? We can’t know the answer to this, and it is certainly true that ethics has never been a problem for the Clintons. Is there any evidence that Hillary Clinton influenced her department’s signing off on the Uranium One transaction? Of course not. After all, we ARE talking about the Clinton’s, right? I mean, come on ... the Clinton’s know the law. They know that American political campaigns are barred from accepting foreign donations, and that charitable foundations are not. I am also quite sure that it is also only coincidental that contributions from private foreign sources overlap with the interests of their respective governments. The fact that some of these interests may be at odds with US policy merely constitutes those shiny objects Ducky was lecturing us about. However, I do suspect that Obama’s reset with Russia was subsequently a cause for great celebrations in the Clinton drawing room.
Of possible interest, here is a list of donors to the Clinton Foundation during the Uranium One chapter of Life with the Clintons (Source: NYT)
Frank Giustra $31.3 million and a pledge for $100 million more He built a company that later merged with Uranium One.
Ian Telfer $2.35 million Mining investor who was chairman of Uranium One when an arm of the Russian government, Rosatom, acquired it.
Paul Reynolds $1 million to $5 million Adviser on 2007 UrAsia-Uranium One merger. Later helped raise $260 million for the company.
Frank Holmes $250,000 to $500,000 Chief Executive of U.S. Global Investors Inc., which held $4.7 million in Uranium One shares in the first quarter of 2011.
Neil Woodyer $50,000 to $100,000 Adviser to Uranium One. Founded Endeavour Mining with Mr. Giustra.
GMP Securities Ltd. Donating portion of profits Worked on debt issue that raised $260 million for Uranium One.
Undisclosed donations
Before Mrs. Clinton could assume her post as secretary of state, the White House demanded that she sign a memorandum of understanding placing limits on the activities of her husband’s foundation. To avoid the perception of conflicts of interest, beyond the ban on foreign government donations, the foundation was required to publicly disclose all contributors.
To judge from those disclosures — which list the contributions in ranges rather than precise amounts — the only Uranium One official to give to the Clinton Foundation was Mr. Telfer, the chairman, and the amount was relatively small: no more than $250,000, and that was in 2007, before talk of a Rosatom deal began percolating.
But a review of tax records in Canada, where Mr. Telfer has a family charity called the Fernwood Foundation, shows donations of $1 million reported in 2009, the year his company appealed to the American Embassy to help it keep its mines in Kazakhstan; $250,000 in 2010, the year the Russians sought majority control; as well as $600,000 in 2011 and $500,000 in 2012.
Mr. Telfer said that his donations had nothing to do with his business dealings, and that he had never discussed Uranium One with Mr. or Mrs. Clinton. He said he had given the money because he wanted to support Mr. Giustra’s charitable endeavors with Mr. Clinton. “Frank and I have been friends and business partners for almost 20 years,” he said.
You can’t have enough friends, right? And speaking of friends, I wonder how much Obama received from the Clinton Foundation to avoid Mrs. Clinton from being fired by Obama for violating her pre-nomination agreement.
I cannot begin to tell you (but I am) how much I appreciate your informative comment. I have been very busy lately and have not been able to follow (in depth) the entire deal. While trying to follow the Steele/Fusion GPS "Trump" Dossier story, among others. Thank you. Of course, all these donors are trying to help people through their donations to the Clinton Clan. What people they are trying to help is fairly obvious.
I'm still curious. It was a nine member that approved or disapproved the deal but only Hillary (who did not sit on the board) got greased? Doesn't seem right. I'd say it's more likely that the contributions were good will money in anticipation of her presidency rather than anything to do with the sale.
Did Obama get greased? Even if the board disapproved the sale, he had final approval and had the power to overrule the board. Funny that only Clinton off all those involved got spiffed.
Anyway, the board process is useful. We can thank Bush for its creation after he tried to sell control of key American ports to the UAE.
Ed, what's to follow in the dossier story. The DNC took over from a Republican candidate and funded adverse research on Trump. Perfectly legal. Unless there are questions about the legality of the investigative methods there's nothing there.
Monday, Manafort will probably get nabbed. Probably for the work he did for Podesta, not Trump. We'll see. As I replied to CI: As to the others? I assume they were under pressure from the administration or Clinton. She may have bribed them or threatened them with suicide. Other than that, I don't know.
"funded adverse research on Trump" You mean colluded with the Russians (who fed Steele that "dossier") like they accused Jared Trump of doing with that woman from Fusion GPS, the same outfit with the Steel Dossier?
When the punishment is in the process, justice is tarnished. Such is the wont of the mighty so that their sacrifice is narrowed to a select few. That is their intent.
If clinton had won, I was going to photoshop a hybrid picture of the White House as a cash register. Then I was going to ban myself from all forms of media where the beast might be present in any form.
FOX-CNN? No one does "News" It's all click bait. Though Fox does represent the right to some degree. Especially compared to the all anti-Trump all the time 99% of the rest of the media.
My source of news is primarily Bret Baier. My source of entertainment is Tucker Carlson and Greg Gutfeld. Hannity? I'm glad he is there, but I don't like to watch him. Maybe his guests, if I accidentally see some of the show. As for click bait? I thought this article was great: https://www.wired.com/2017/02/veles-macedonia-fake-news/
It's not over yet Ed. There may be a deal in the works. Wherein he will do it on live TV while blaming the "nasty Republicans for ruining my life." Hey, the Progs have obviously been in bed with the suicide bombing people for so long, it is not unlikely that some of their incentives may have rubbed off. Lie in bed with dogs, get up with fleas.
ReplyDeleteThis could also be the route out for Marc Elias, the Lawyer who bought the Pee-Pee Dosier from Fusion GPS on behalf of the Clinton campaign and DNC. Take one for the eam Marc and we'll make sure your estate is secured. Stay tuned.
If someone like Comey could be paid to take one for the Clinton team, and he was, then certainly Marc Elias could be.
DeleteThat is the form true fascism takes to fund (supplied by its the crony corporations such as book publishers, themselves critical members of the propaganda agencies) its various sticks who, in turn, are bound to the axe handle you see on any fasces image. The [scratch] Left [insert] Sinister continue to claim to hate fascism even as they engage in it.
DeleteWhat's amazing is how the useful idiot libs either refuse to see the pattern or simply have no knowledge of history because they've been dumbed-down so much by the education agency (also working to achieve the opposite of its label)
BTW, libs should note that I always differentiate them from the Sinister. They remain convinced that because the [scratch] Left knows the right words that sound liberal that they are also liberal. So many libs have now themselves become victims of the radicals one would think more libs would start to get wise.
DeleteWell, where there's life there's hope.
That's a very astute depiction of the fascist symbol that Mussolini used and is very appropriate for today as you described it.
DeleteI'll be interested to see how any criminal or unethical dealings Hillary may have had in relation to the Uranium deal, swayed the other 8 votes. That's the critical piece of information I haven't yet seen. Of course, I'm not currently watching any TV [especially Fox News], so I just may not have heard any evidence that exists.
ReplyDeleteSo far the whole thing smacks of shiny objects being dangled in front of the fringe right bas.
DeleteFirst we have Vadim Milkerin who is, I believe, the "secret informant" ( woo, scary) and was bribed by an American uranium transport company to get the haulage business.
The transport company paid for the bribes by hiking their fees so it amounts to a simple embezzlement plot.
Your task is to try to attach the Clintons to this simple example of corruption.
Then there are the foundation donations. Ninety percent of the donations came from Frank Giustra or his wife. Problem is that Giustra had completely divested his interest in the company four years before the sale and nearly two years before Clinton became secretary.
Not too damning.
The deal hasn't worked out well for Russia as uranium prices are down over 60% since Fukushima.
The phony angle that Russia is exporting 20% of American uranium is also nonsense since export is controlled. The power brokers dangled this set of shiny keys in a similar scandal when they lied through heir teeth about l'affaire Plame.
You're wise to be skeptical.
Your sources are as biased as mine.
DeleteCI. I don't understand your comment about especially not watching Fox News. I find it to be more trustful then CNN and certainly MSNBC. Of course, Hannity needs to be taken with a grain of salt. Doesn't make him wrong though on the majority of what he discloses.
DeleteMy comment on Fox [beating this drum 24/7] is largely irrelevant...I'm not sure why you keyed in on that when I made a specific point about Clinton's alleged involvement.
DeleteFor the record though, I wouldn't trust Hannity to tell me the sky is blue, anymore than you would trust Maddow or any of the other sock puppets. They not only thrive on political theater, it's the business model. None of them are to be trusted.
Whether or not Clinton took money for her vote, how did that [as it seems the Right is alleging] sway the other 8 votes on the Committee on Foreign Investments in the United States? The breathless reporting from certain sectors in our political theater, would have the populace believe that the thumbs up or down was entirely on Clinton's shoulders. That would be......"fake news".
- CI
"why you keyed in on that". It stuck out as if they were more distrustful to you than the rest and I wondered why.
DeleteAs to the other 7? I assume they were under pressure from the administration or Clinton. She may have bribed them or threatened them with suicide. Other than that, I don't know.
I assume they were under pressure from the administration or Clinton.
DeleteThat was my point. A lot of hysteria being whipped up over 'assuming'.
One wonders if the same folks will be as concerned over Whitefish.....
- CI
Mueller and his team of do nothing but collect a lot of our money need to be discredited right now with extreme prejudice. He was in the think of this !
ReplyDeleteSessions should on recuse himself and fire Mueller. Easy peasy.
DeleteThe laundry list of crimes the obama admin and hillary have skated on and that we know about is already quite lengthy. They will skate on this too.
ReplyDeleteJeff Sessions apparently has bigger fish to fry. Like MS-13 and immigrants.
DeleteA Pravda article in 2013 hailed Mr. Putin as having conquered the nuclear energy world. This was after Rosatom, one of the world’s largest producers of uranium, purchased the Canadian company known as Uranium One. The leaders of the Canadian mining industry have funneled millions into the Clinton Foundation. Is it merely a coincidence, then, that Uranium One was granted an export license during the Obama administration? Possibly. Never-the-less, Pravda is excited that Russia now controls one-fifth of all uranium production in the US and the fact remains that between 2009 and 2013, Uranium One’s chairman use his family foundations to make four donations totaling $2.5 million to the Clintons. These contributions, by the way, were among those that an “accounting error” failed to disclose, which violated Hillary’s agreement with her boss while serving as SecState. And it was only a short time after Russia announced its intention to purchase Uranium One when Billy Clinton received a half-million dollar speaking engagement.
ReplyDeleteIt is also interesting to me that our knowledge of these transactions was revealed by author Peter Schweizer (Clinton Cash), facts which the NYT independently verified. Were there any violations of law in any of this? We can’t know the answer to this, and it is certainly true that ethics has never been a problem for the Clintons. Is there any evidence that Hillary Clinton influenced her department’s signing off on the Uranium One transaction? Of course not. After all, we ARE talking about the Clinton’s, right? I mean, come on ... the Clinton’s know the law. They know that American political campaigns are barred from accepting foreign donations, and that charitable foundations are not. I am also quite sure that it is also only coincidental that contributions from private foreign sources overlap with the interests of their respective governments. The fact that some of these interests may be at odds with US policy merely constitutes those shiny objects Ducky was lecturing us about. However, I do suspect that Obama’s reset with Russia was subsequently a cause for great celebrations in the Clinton drawing room.
Addendum
ReplyDeleteOf possible interest, here is a list of donors to the Clinton Foundation during the Uranium One chapter of Life with the Clintons (Source: NYT)
Frank Giustra
$31.3 million and a pledge for $100 million more
He built a company that later merged with Uranium One.
Ian Telfer
$2.35 million
Mining investor who was chairman of Uranium One when an arm of the Russian government, Rosatom, acquired it.
Paul Reynolds
$1 million to $5 million
Adviser on 2007 UrAsia-Uranium One merger. Later helped raise $260 million for the company.
Frank Holmes
$250,000 to $500,000
Chief Executive of U.S. Global Investors Inc., which held $4.7 million in Uranium One shares in the first quarter of 2011.
Neil Woodyer
$50,000 to $100,000
Adviser to Uranium One. Founded Endeavour Mining with Mr. Giustra.
GMP Securities Ltd.
Donating portion of profits
Worked on debt issue that raised $260 million for Uranium One.
Undisclosed donations
Before Mrs. Clinton could assume her post as secretary of state, the White House demanded that she sign a memorandum of understanding placing limits on the activities of her husband’s foundation. To avoid the perception of conflicts of interest, beyond the ban on foreign government donations, the foundation was required to publicly disclose all contributors.
To judge from those disclosures — which list the contributions in ranges rather than precise amounts — the only Uranium One official to give to the Clinton Foundation was Mr. Telfer, the chairman, and the amount was relatively small: no more than $250,000, and that was in 2007, before talk of a Rosatom deal began percolating.
But a review of tax records in Canada, where Mr. Telfer has a family charity called the Fernwood Foundation, shows donations of $1 million reported in 2009, the year his company appealed to the American Embassy to help it keep its mines in Kazakhstan; $250,000 in 2010, the year the Russians sought majority control; as well as $600,000 in 2011 and $500,000 in 2012.
Mr. Telfer said that his donations had nothing to do with his business dealings, and that he had never discussed Uranium One with Mr. or Mrs. Clinton. He said he had given the money because he wanted to support Mr. Giustra’s charitable endeavors with Mr. Clinton. “Frank and I have been friends and business partners for almost 20 years,” he said.
You can’t have enough friends, right? And speaking of friends, I wonder how much Obama received from the Clinton Foundation to avoid Mrs. Clinton from being fired by Obama for violating her pre-nomination agreement.
I cannot begin to tell you (but I am) how much I appreciate your informative comment.
DeleteI have been very busy lately and have not been able to follow (in depth) the entire deal.
While trying to follow the Steele/Fusion GPS "Trump" Dossier story, among others.
Thank you.
Of course, all these donors are trying to help people through their donations to the Clinton Clan.
What people they are trying to help is fairly obvious.
I'm still curious.
DeleteIt was a nine member that approved or disapproved the deal but only Hillary (who did not sit on the board) got greased? Doesn't seem right.
I'd say it's more likely that the contributions were good will money in anticipation of her presidency rather than anything to do with the sale.
Did Obama get greased? Even if the board disapproved the sale, he had final approval and had the power to overrule the board. Funny that only Clinton off all those involved got spiffed.
Anyway, the board process is useful. We can thank Bush for its creation after he tried to sell control of key American ports to the UAE.
Ed, what's to follow in the dossier story. The DNC took over from a Republican candidate and funded adverse research on Trump. Perfectly legal.
Unless there are questions about the legality of the investigative methods there's nothing there.
Monday, Monday. Fascinating timing.
Monday, Manafort will probably get nabbed.
DeleteProbably for the work he did for Podesta, not Trump.
We'll see.
As I replied to CI:
As to the others? I assume they were under pressure from the administration or Clinton. She may have bribed them or threatened them with suicide. Other than that, I don't know.
"funded adverse research on Trump"
You mean colluded with the Russians (who fed Steele that "dossier") like they accused Jared Trump of doing with that woman from Fusion GPS, the same outfit with the Steel Dossier?
I agree, gonna be a tough day for Manafort.
DeleteWhen the punishment is in the process, justice is tarnished. Such is the wont of the mighty so that their sacrifice is narrowed to a select few. That is their intent.
DeleteIf clinton had won, I was going to photoshop a hybrid picture of the White House as a cash register. Then I was going to ban myself from all forms of media where the beast might be present in any form.
ReplyDeleteFOX-CNN? No one does "News" It's all click bait. Though Fox does represent the right to some degree. Especially compared to the all anti-Trump all the time 99% of the rest of the media.
My source of news is primarily Bret Baier.
DeleteMy source of entertainment is Tucker Carlson and Greg Gutfeld.
Hannity? I'm glad he is there, but I don't like to watch him. Maybe his guests, if I accidentally see some of the show.
As for click bait?
I thought this article was great: https://www.wired.com/2017/02/veles-macedonia-fake-news/