Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Sign in to follow this  
David Dodds

The Hill - Russian Bribery Plot and the Clinton Foundation

Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, saintfool said:

So, they caught the Russian doing the bribing and sent him up the river for 4 years in 2015? Why is this news in 2017?

2 Obama and Clinton lied about the nuclear deals

The Obama administration and the Clintons defended their actions at the time, insisting there was no evidence that any Russians or donors engaged in wrongdoing and there was no national security reason for any member of the committee to oppose the Uranium One deal.

But FBI, Energy Department and court documents reviewed by The Hill show the FBI in fact had gathered substantial evidence well before the committee’s decision that Vadim Mikerin — the main Russian overseeing Putin’s nuclear expansion inside the United States — was engaged in wrongdoing starting in 2009.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, saintfool said:

So, they caught the Russian doing the bribing and sent him up the river for 4 years in 2015? Why is this news in 2017?

3. The DOJ kept the Russia connections hidden

The final court case also made no mention of any connection to the influence peddling conversations the FBI undercover informant witnessed about the Russian nuclear officials trying to ingratiate themselves with the Clintons even though agents had gathered documents showing the transmission of millions of dollars from Russia’s nuclear industry to an American entity that had provided assistance to Bill Clinton’s foundation, sources confirmed to The Hill.[

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, saintfool said:

So, they caught the Russian doing the bribing and sent him up the river for 4 years in 2015? Why is this news in 2017?

4. Key members of congress were not alerted to this breach of national security

 

Former Rep. Mike Rogers (R-Mich.), who chaired the House Intelligence Committee during the time the FBI probe was being conducted, told The Hill that he had never been told anything about the Russian nuclear corruption case even though many fellow lawmakers had serious concerns about the Obama administration’s approval of the Uranium One deal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, saintfool said:

So, they caught the Russian doing the bribing and sent him up the river for 4 years in 2015? Why is this news in 2017?

5. Some key people that kept this hidden include FBI Directors Mueller and Comey, Us attorney Rosenstein, Attorney General Holder....some big names who should probably recuse themselves due to the appearance of running cover for Clinton Foundation 

Edited by Rove!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure what the big deal is here...the Russians had planned to give a large donation to an American charity...after getting proposals from the Boy Scouts, St. Jude's Hospital and the Clinton Foundation they went with the Clintons...my guess is if the Boy Scouts decision to let girls in was known back then they would have been the recepient as the Russians are big fans of celebrating diversity...

 

Edited by Boston
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, shader said:

Of course they are different.  One situation has the Clinton's and one situation has the evil Trump.  So you give the upstanding Clinton's the benefit of the doubt, but with Trump, we know everything he does is nefarious so whenever there's a possible connection...well we know that the connection is just not yet proven (but will be).  With the Clinton's we need hard evidence because these are good people.

I think you’re being sold a faulty bill of goods with this assessment. There’s been an agenda brewing for a while to feed people these sort of false equivalencies. The idea of shutting off your rational faculties and critical thinking because an objective truth is unknowable unless your an “insider”; that every news source is inherently biased, and therefore untrustworthy; and all discourse/arguments/facts are really just confirmation bias. It leads to a sort of psychological defeatism that makes a society very susceptible to totalitarianism.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Rove! said:

1 The Russians bribed the Clintons....confirmed 

 

 

This is the key point of the article.  The “backed up by documents” is important.

Is this true?  If so where are the documents to prove the bribery?

12 minutes ago, ProstheticRGK said:

I think you’re being sold a faulty bill of goods with this assessment. There’s been an agenda brewing for a while to feed people these sort of false equivalencies. The idea of shutting off your rational faculties and critical thinking because an objective truth is unknowable unless your an “insider”; that every news source is inherently biased, and therefore untrustworthy; and all discourse/arguments/facts are really just confirmation bias. It leads to a sort of psychological defeatism that makes a society very susceptible to totalitarianism.

 

The allegations of the Clinton Foundation getting bribed by russia are just as bad as Russia (through WikiLeaks or other Russian assets) providing Trump Hilary info or releasing damaging Hilary docs.

I have no idea what is or is not true, but both are incredibly damaging allegations that to this point neither Clinton nor Trump have been convicted of. 

Edited by shader

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its not difficult guys.  Say it with me:

Trump AND the Clintons  both appear to be corrupt!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, shader said:

This is the key point of the article.  The “backed up by documents” is important.

Is this true?  If so where are the documents to prove the bribery?

 

The allegations of the Clinton Foundation getting bribed by russia are just as bad as Russia (through WikiLeaks or other Russian assets) providing Trump Hilary info or releasing damaging Hilary docs.

I have no idea what is or is not true, but both are incredibly damaging allegations that to this point neither Clinton nor Trump have been convicted of. 

Bribed to do what?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, shader said:

This is the key point of the article.  The “backed up by documents” is important.

Is this true?  If so where are the documents to prove the bribery?

 

The allegations of the Clinton Foundation getting bribed by russia are just as bad as Russia (through WikiLeaks or other Russian assets) providing Trump Hilary info or releasing damaging Hilary docs.

I have no idea what is or is not true, but both are incredibly damaging allegations that to this point neither Clinton nor Trump have been convicted of. 

Can you point out the allegations that the Clinton Foundation was being bribed? I’m not seeing a closed loop in the article, only insinuation that an “eyewitness” and “documents” showed that American businesses were involved, and that they donated to the Clinton Foundation.

im not going to go through the littany of stuff I’ve read from the Mueller investigation, but comparing this to the Trump investigation is really a stretch, imo. And it’s exactly what i was referencing in my original post: this article isn’t news as much as it is a crafted propaganda piece designed to insinuate something, rather than report fact. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You've chosen to ignore content by Rove!. Options ▼

You've chosen to ignore content by Rove!. Options ▼

You've chosen to ignore content by Rove!. Options ▼

You've chosen to ignore content by Rove!. Options

You've chosen to ignore content by Rove!. Options ▼

 

:pickle:

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, ProstheticRGK said:

Can you point out the allegations that the Clinton Foundation was being bribed? I’m not seeing a closed loop in the article, only insinuation that an “eyewitness” and “documents” showed that American businesses were involved, and that they donated to the Clinton Foundation.

im not going to go through the littany of stuff I’ve read from the Mueller investigation, but comparing this to the Trump investigation is really a stretch, imo. And it’s exactly what i was referencing in my original post: this article isn’t news as much as it is a crafted propaganda piece designed to insinuate something, rather than report fact. 

"They also obtained an eyewitness account — backed by documents — indicating Russian nuclear officials had routed millions of dollars to the U.S. designed to benefit former President Bill Clinton’s charitable foundation during the time Secretary of State Hillary Clinton served on a government body that provided a favorable decision to Moscow, sources told The Hill."

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, shader said:

"They also obtained an eyewitness account — backed by documents — indicating Russian nuclear officials had routed millions of dollars to the U.S. designed to benefit former President Bill Clinton’s charitable foundation during the time Secretary of State Hillary Clinton served on a government body that provided a favorable decision to Moscow, sources told The Hill."

 

It also says this:

"The final court case also made no mention of any connection to the influence peddling conversations the FBI undercover informant witnesed about the Russian nuclear officials trying to ingratiate themselves with the Clintons even though agents had gathered documents showing the transmission of millions of dollars from Russia’s nuclear industry to an American entity that had provided assistance to Bill Clinton’s foundation, sources confirmed to The Hill."

The article is all over the place making vague inferences and saying Clinton a lot. The documents they are talking about seem to indicate that Russian oligarchs funneled lots of money to an American business and that American business also gave money to the Clinton foundation.  

Secondly I take issue with the article repeatedly saying that Clinton served on the government body that approved the Uranium One deal. Hillary was not part of the committee that made that decision - a representative from the State Department was, along with 8 other representatives from 8 other departments. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, TobiasFunke said:

For anyone inclined to give this Russian uranium bribery corruption nonsense any credence as it applies to Clinton or Obama or whatever, a couple reminders.  These will be old news to anyone who has read the several times I refuted this in the Clinton thread or whenever @Rove! tries to whatabout with it in the Russia thread:

1.  Then-Secretary Clinton played only a small role in approving the transaction in question (sale of controlling interest in a uranium mining company).  Her agency was one of many on an advisory board that reviews such transactions. I would be surprised if Clinton even knew this was going on at the time.

2. It doesn't matter anyway, because you can't export Uranium produced in the United States. It's a story because it makes an effective scare tactic, that's really the only reason anyone even knows about this relatively ordinary approval of a boring transaction.

This post really annoys me.  Why?  Because of the sheer arrogance of it.

Tobias, don't you find it a bit silly to say "I refuted this".  I mean cmon man.  We are internet guys, not professional investigators.  You haven't refuted anything.  You may have made great points on a subject in which you have partial knowledge...but you haven't refuted anything.  Also, is the information in this article not new?  It appears there is new stuff here.  Is that accurate?

I just find it odd that very soon after the article comes out you quickly post that it's nonsense and that you've refuted it.....

To me...that screams that you're extremely biased.

Also, while Clinton may have played "only a small role"...was it a vital role?  Meaning did she have veto power?  

Saying "I would be surprised if Clinton even knew this was going on" is another extremely arrogant statement.  How would you possibly know that?  Especially when it appears that right around that time she and Billy were receiving loads of money from Russia?

If uranium can't be exported...ok.  What's the point?  And why is it a "boring transaction"?  Because you say so?  Some find it quite odd that Russia owns a percentage of Uranium in the US.  Some find that to be anything but boring. 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Joe Summer said:

But it was BACKED BY DOCUMENTS!!

DOCK-YOU-MENTTTTTTSSSS!!!

Like that pile of file folders in Trumps first press conference?

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Koya said:

Was this just a drive by trolling effort? Toss out some fake news red meat about Hillary, but don't have the decency to come back and continue the conversation nor address any questions / issues.

Seriously, is the purpose to engage in constructive dialogue from which many of us might learn something - or just throw out unsubstantiated and inflammatory claims to sow discord rather than discourse?

Yes.  Pretty sloppy from an owner of the business.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, shader said:

This post really annoys me.  Why?  Because of the sheer arrogance of it.

Tobias, don't you find it a bit silly to say "I refuted this".  I mean cmon man.  We are internet guys, not professional investigators.  You haven't refuted anything.  You may have made great points on a subject in which you have partial knowledge...but you haven't refuted anything.  Also, is the information in this article not new?  It appears there is new stuff here.  Is that accurate?

I just find it odd that very soon after the article comes out you quickly post that it's nonsense and that you've refuted it.....

To me...that screams that you're extremely biased.

Also, while Clinton may have played "only a small role"...was it a vital role?  Meaning did she have veto power?  

Saying "I would be surprised if Clinton even knew this was going on" is another extremely arrogant statement.  How would you possibly know that?  Especially when it appears that right around that time she and Billy were receiving loads of money from Russia?

If uranium can't be exported...ok.  What's the point?  And why is it a "boring transaction"?  Because you say so?  Some find it quite odd that Russia owns a percentage of Uranium in the US.  Some find that to be anything but boring. 

 

I laughed when i read that too. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Thunderlips said:

I applaud the newfound concern from Conservatives towards Russians trying to influence people within the corridors of power in our country and expect them to fully back ALL investigations and concerns regarding this matter going forward.  It's good they're finally realizing the severity of these actions from Moscow. 

Holy shiot!!

You're seriously contending that conservatives have historically been more solicitous of the Russians than liberals have?

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Rove! said:

1 The Russians bribed the Clintons....confirmed 

I'm not sure you know what this word "bribed" means. For example, the Clinton Foundation had been taking money from donors - including foreign gov'ts - for years. The Hill - Joe Solomon, formerly of the Washington Times (!) - suggests Moscow got a "favorable decision" because of Clinton. What favorable decision? It's not specified here by Solomon. We know that Obama was trying to reset US-Russian relations when Putin stepped down in 2007 and Medvedev took over for a term. We also know that it wasn't her decision to make about the uranium sale. She could have 86'ed it if she was notified but, apparently, she wasn't. 

No offense, Rove, but this is a pretty boneheaded line of inquiry. Clinton actually went to great lengths - WaPo lays this out here - to maintain some distance from the Foundation when she was SoS. She went even further when she ran for POTUS in 2016. I don't think she was 100% clean on this but that doesn't mean she is pure evil either. She at least tried to inject some ethical standard - even if it was for show, I guess - to her credit and that's not something that can be said about DJT. Say what you will about Clinton but she at least had the common decency to try to lie as opposed to Trump. 

Edited by saintfool

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just love how dismissive and contentious people get to protect their bias.  In the other thread, we've seen rampant speculation on Trump's ties to Russia based on things like Dianne Feinstein's facial expressions, numerous debunked news cycle items, Louise Mensch blogposts, bomb emoji tweets, evidence-free conspiracies about Wikileaks being a front for Russia, etc.  

Meanwhile we have a report strongly alleging the Clinton Foundation received millions in Russian money while Secretary of State Hillary Clinton "served on a government body that provided a favorable decision to Moscow," and the FBI sat on it.  Clinton's own internal polling showed the Russian uranium deal was one of her top vulnerabilities.  It followed from the very beginning that they would try to lump Russia on Trump.  

That people can get so up in arms over it when it involves Trump but not Clinton, and deflect/discount it all away like that is just so predictable.  

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, shader said:

Saying "I would be surprised if Clinton even knew this was going on" is another extremely arrogant statement.  How would you possibly know that?  Especially when it appears that right around that time she and Billy were receiving loads of money from Russia?

I'm not going to get involved in the other stuff, but I wanted to comment on two points. To this point, this story has been reported on for years now and several members of the committee that reviews these foreign deals, as well as members of the State Department, have publicly stated that Hillary did not get involved in the decisions of the committee unless her reps brought something to her, which they rarely did. They have said it was highly unlikely that Hillary would have even seen this case at all. Just because she was Secretary of State does not mean that she saw every piece of paper that passed through the State Department during her term.

1 hour ago, shader said:

If uranium can't be exported...ok.  What's the point?  And why is it a "boring transaction"?  Because you say so?  Some find it quite odd that Russia owns a percentage of Uranium in the US.  Some find that to be anything but boring. 

Saying that Russia owns a percentage of our Uranium is intentionally misleading and is used by sources that have an agenda. Russians own a percentage of a Canadian company that mines our uranium for us. It is our uranium and it legally cannot leave our country whether Canadians, Russians, or Martians are paid to mine it. That is why, to some, it may seem like a boring story. It was a business transaction that took place in the business world involving non-US companies, and at the time, the representatives from 9 different US agencies didn't see an issue with it and decided to sign off on it. And none of those 9 people were Hillary Clinton.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, ren hoek said:

I just love how dismissive and contentious people get to protect their bias.  In the other thread, we've seen rampant speculation on Trump's ties to Russia based on things like Dianne Feinstein's facial expressions, numerous debunked news cycle items, Louise Mensch blogposts, bomb emoji tweets, evidence-free conspiracies about Wikileaks being a front for Russia, etc.  

Meanwhile we have a report strongly alleging the Clinton Foundation received millions in Russian money while Secretary of State Hillary Clinton "served on a government body that provided a favorable decision to Moscow," and the FBI sat on it.  Clinton's own internal polling showed the Russian uranium deal was one of her top vulnerabilities.  It followed from the very beginning that they would try to lump Russia on Trump.  

That people can get so up in arms over it when it involves Trump but not Clinton, and deflect/discount it all away like that is just so predictable.  

You're not trying very hard, Ren. Clinton Foundation was allowed to accept money from foreign gov't while she was SoS. They could receive donations from gov'ts that had given before and in amounts that were not exceeding previous donations. This is pretty common, in fact, as donations are spread out over several years often times. A $25 million donation might be spread out over 5 years, for example. I'm not going to do the legwork to see what the Russians were donating over the years to the Foundation but if it's not meaningfully different year to year? BFD. 

Christ almighty, that she "served on a government body that provided a favorable decision to Moscow" might be the laziest bit of writing. It's the most amorphous term to describe her role in in the uranium deal. Yes, she worked for the gov't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, shader said:

This post really annoys me.  Why?  Because of the sheer arrogance of it.

Tobias, don't you find it a bit silly to say "I refuted this".  I mean cmon man.  We are internet guys, not professional investigators.  You haven't refuted anything.  You may have made great points on a subject in which you have partial knowledge...but you haven't refuted anything.  Also, is the information in this article not new?  It appears there is new stuff here.  Is that accurate?

I just find it odd that very soon after the article comes out you quickly post that it's nonsense and that you've refuted it.....

To me...that screams that you're extremely biased.

Also, while Clinton may have played "only a small role"...was it a vital role?  Meaning did she have veto power?  

Saying "I would be surprised if Clinton even knew this was going on" is another extremely arrogant statement.  How would you possibly know that?  Especially when it appears that right around that time she and Billy were receiving loads of money from Russia?

If uranium can't be exported...ok.  What's the point?  And why is it a "boring transaction"?  Because you say so?  Some find it quite odd that Russia owns a percentage of Uranium in the US.  Some find that to be anything but boring. 

You think?  This is a well-known fact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Don't Noonan said:

Agreed.  We definitely dodged a bullet last November. 

And stepped on a land mine.

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, shader said:

This post really annoys me.  Why?  Because of the sheer arrogance of it.

Tobias, don't you find it a bit silly to say "I refuted this".  I mean cmon man.  We are internet guys, not professional investigators.  You haven't refuted anything.  You may have made great points on a subject in which you have partial knowledge...but you haven't refuted anything.  Also, is the information in this article not new?  It appears there is new stuff here.  Is that accurate?

I just find it odd that very soon after the article comes out you quickly post that it's nonsense and that you've refuted it.....

To me...that screams that you're extremely biased.

The only thing that was new in the article was the indictment of the Russian money-laundering and violations of the FCPA. I only had to read it once to know that. It's not news that money was flowing from Russian sources to the Clinton Foundation while Hillary was SOS and that by virtue of her position she had a seat on the CFIUS. That was all reported over 2 years ago by the NY Times. The article treats the linking of large sums of Russian money to the Foundation as a new revelation, but as you can see the Times reported that too. The news here is the charges for the Russians, not any ties to the Clintons.

 

Quote

Also, while Clinton may have played "only a small role"...was it a vital role?  Meaning did she have veto power?  

No, not really.  The Committee was chaired by the Treasury Department, and even the Committee itself doesn't have veto power- the best they can do is recommend to the president that a transaction be disallowed. This is very rare, and obviously wouldn't happen here, since the ban on exporting uranium means there's no national security risk and that's the extent of their jurisdiction.

This is explained here and here.

Quote

Saying "I would be surprised if Clinton even knew this was going on" is another extremely arrogant statement.  How would you possibly know that?  Especially when it appears that right around that time she and Billy were receiving loads of money from Russia?

A couple ways.  First, Clinton says she didn't know through her spokesperson.  Yes her credibility is questionable, but she also says that an official at State who worked on this matter would say the same things. Not many politicians, if any, would bring an employee into their lie, especially since that employee could easily refute it without consequence. Also I have extensive experience working with federal agencies and I know this is generally how they work.  A secretary would never get personally involved in what is essentially a rubber stamp due diligence-type process. I get that you think it sounds arrogant and I'm sorry that the tone strikes you that way, but some of this stuff is literally part of my job. I talk to people at federal agencies almost every day. I have a decent feel for what stuff reaches a Secretary's desk and what stuff is handled by lower-level appointees and civil servants.

Quote

If uranium can't be exported...ok.  What's the point?  And why is it a "boring transaction"?  Because you say so?  Some find it quite odd that Russia owns a percentage of Uranium in the US.  Some find that to be anything but boring. 

It's a boring transaction because the ban on exporting uranium meant it was not a national security threat.  In fact Rosatom wasn't doing this to get US uranium at all. That was just a by-product. Here's a description of the transaction from Wikipedia:

"In June 2009, the Russian uranium mining company ARMZ Uranium Holding Co. (ARMZ), a part of Rosatom, acquired 16.6% of shares in Uranium One in exchange for a 50% interest in the Karatau uranium mining project, a joint venture with Kazatomprom. In June 2010, Uranium One acquired 50% and 49% respective interests in southern Kazakhstan-based Akbastau and Zarechnoye uranium mines from ARMZ. In exchange, ARMZ increased its stake in Uranium One to 51%. The acquisition resulted in a 60% annual production increase at Uranium One, from approximately 10 million to 16 million lb.The deal was subject to anti-trust and other conditions and was not finalized until the companies received Kazakh regulatory approvals, approval under Canadian investment law, clearance by the US Committee on Foreign Investments, and approvals from both the Toronto and Johannesburg stock exchanges. The deal was finalized by the end of 2010. Uranium One paid its minority shareholders a significant dividend of 1.06 United States Dollars at the end of 2010."

Maybe your tastes differ from mine, but from where I'm sitting that's some boring-### reading about a boring-### transaction. Furthermore, here's a question for you- do you know who owns the other 80% of US uranium production?  Do you know if any foreign investors hold large ownership stakes in other mining companies with US assets?  What about in Boeing?  Lockheed Martin?  FedEx or UPS? ExxonMobil? I'm guessing no, because it's boring. And because there's a significant oversight structure in place to ensure that these foreign investors don't present any kind of security threat. This is boring stuff that most people rightly ignore. The reason some people find this case "anything but boring" is because the media interests who long ago realized that people can't get enough negative coverage of the Clintons are telling them it's not boring.  That's not to say the Clintons are innocent angels, but the level persecution exceeds what their behavior justifies by many orders of magnitude.

Anyway, sorry my tone struck you as arrogant, but I hope you see where I'm coming from.  Repeating this stuff can be tiresome, but more importantly it drives me crazy when people don't bother to learn the details and use stuff like this to excuse people like Donald Trump, whose sins are so much greater that it's comical to even make the comparison, by just throwing up their hands and saying "everyone does it" or "Hillary would have been just as bad." That's clearly false.

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, saintfool said:

Say what you will about Clinton but she at least had the common decency to try to lie as opposed to Trump. 

:lmao: 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Where are you guys getting that there is a ban on exporting domestically produced uranium from the US?  :confused:

The US produces a tiny amount of global uranium, but this is a commodity that is down in the dumps post Fukushima.  There is a glut of above ground material.  You can get all you want in the spot market for $20/Lb, which is where it was in 2004 before it went up in a parabola pattern on a price chart to $136 in 2007.  But the US is not restricted from selling uranium to other countries.  Where is this coming from?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Where are you guys getting that there is a ban on exporting domestically produced uranium from the US? :confused:



The US produces a tiny amount of global uranium, but this is a commodity that is down in the dumps post Fukushima. There is a glut of above ground material. You can get all you want in the spot market for $20/Lb, which is where it was in 2004 before it went up in a parabola pattern on a price chart to $136 in 2007. But the US is not restricted from selling uranium to other countries. Where is this coming from?


You've posted a variation on this response several times over the past two years. They never acknowledge you. They have no interest in hearing the truth. They just want to hear whatever makes them feel good and whatever confirms their bias.

A month from now Rove/Ren/Dodds/Max/etc. will once again claim "THERE IS A BAN ON URANIUM EXPORTS!!!" and you'll once again write, "Dude, I already told you that was false last month". But they'll be on to the next squirellghazi and once again you'll be ignored.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Joe Summer said:


You've posted a variation on this response several times over the past two years. They never acknowledge you. They have no interest in hearing the truth. They just want to hear whatever makes them feel good and whatever confirms their bias.

A month from now Rove/Ren/Dodds/Max/etc. will once again claim "THERE IS A BAN ON URANIUM EXPORTS!!!" and you'll once again write, "Dude, I already told you that was false last month". But they'll be on to the next squirellghazi and once again you'll be ignored.

It's so silly.  US produces a TINY amount of global uranium supply annually.  It consumes more than any other country, however, as our appetite for electricity is massive.  We are forced to rely on other countries for uranium supply.  In fact, a HUGE component of our uranium supply over the years was russian material in the Megatons to Megawatts Program, which ended in 2013.  Russia and the US have been dance partners in the uranium markets for a long long time.  

The silliest thing of all is that Uranium One was a CANADIAN COMPANY.  I love the so-called laissez-faire republicans suddenly shouting from the rooftops that Hillary had a moral obligation to obstruct the sale of a CANADIAN company to a Russian entity, a deal that had way more to do with gaining control of Kazakh supply than the miniscule amount of production coming from Wyoming.  

The fundamental inability to understand this transaction is mind boggling to me, yet, here we are.  STILL.  

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, General Malaise said:

Where are you guys getting that there is a ban on exporting domestically produced uranium from the US?  :confused:

The US produces a tiny amount of global uranium, but this is a commodity that is down in the dumps post Fukushima.  There is a glut of above ground material.  You can get all you want in the spot market for $20/Lb, which is where it was in 2004 before it went up in a parabola pattern on a price chart to $136 in 2007.  But the US is not restricted from selling uranium to other countries.  Where is this coming from?

It's not a strict ban across the board, but the limitations that would be placed on Rosatom pretty much amount to one.  link  direct link to NRC letter

The point is that simply approving the sale of a controlling interest in Uranium One didn't give the Russians some sort of unchecked control over US uranium. Therefore there's no increased security risk, despite the manufactured outrage of the right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, TobiasFunke said:

It's not a strict ban across the board, but the limitations that would be placed on Rosatom pretty much amount to one.  link  direct link to NRC letter

The point is that simply approving the sale of a controlling interest in Uranium One didn't give the Russians some sort of unchecked control over US uranium. Therefore there's no increased security risk, despite the manufactured outrage of the right.

I've been saying this very thing for years on this board.  It's astounding how incredibly wrong the vocal right is and has been over this transaction.  

Do you know how much uranium was produced by Uranium One's Willow Creek last year?  23 tonnes.  Out of 1126 tonnes produced in the US in 2016.  That's 2% of the production number.  The world produced 62,012 tonnes last year.  So Uranium One's US production was all of 0.04% of global output in 2016.  

BUT GM!!!  HILLARY CLINTON GAVE 20% OF THE US URANIUM AWAY TO RUSSIA!!!!!!

Oh, really?  I've shown my math.  Show me yours.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, General Malaise said:

I've been saying this very thing for years on this board.  It's astounding how incredibly wrong the vocal right is and has been over this transaction.  

Do you know how much uranium was produced by Uranium One's Willow Creek last year?  23 tonnes.  Out of 1126 tonnes produced in the US in 2016.  That's 2% of the production number.  The world produced 62,012 tonnes last year.  So Uranium One's US production was all of 0.04% of global output in 2016.  

BUT GM!!!  HILLARY CLINTON GAVE 20% OF THE US URANIUM AWAY TO RUSSIA!!!!!!

Oh, really?  I've shown my math.  Show me yours.

I've been fighting the same battle from the legal/regulatory perspective without even knowing much about this aspect of it. 

Apparently it's even more of a nothingburger than I previously thought.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, General Malaise said:

Where are you guys getting that there is a ban on exporting domestically produced uranium from the US?  :confused:

The US produces a tiny amount of global uranium, but this is a commodity that is down in the dumps post Fukushima.  There is a glut of above ground material.  You can get all you want in the spot market for $20/Lb, which is where it was in 2004 before it went up in a parabola pattern on a price chart to $136 in 2007.  But the US is not restricted from selling uranium to other countries.  Where is this coming from?

It doesnt change the validity of your thoughts here since global supply was high and US production is not, but just for accuracy sake the price around the time of this alleged issue was more like $45/pound and it did hit above $70 again sometime in 2011. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, parasaurolophus said:

It doesnt change the validity of your thoughts here since global supply was high and US production is not, but just for accuracy sake the price around the time of this alleged issue was more like $45/pound and it did hit above $70 again sometime in 2011. 

 

 

It hit $70 moments before a giant earthquake caused a tsunami to wipe out Fukushima.  But even when this deal was struck, uranium prices had collapsed to $45 and there was no shortage of material as investors dumped material into the stock market during the 2008 financial holocaust.  

But this deal was never really about Russia trying to take a large stake in US production, which again is de minimis.  It was about gaining more production in Kazakhstan, which is the world's largest producer of uranium and a large reason why prices have died.  They raced so hard and so fast to be the world's leading producer that they forgot a critical component of financial success - selling material at an attractive price.  They produced so much so fast that they authored their own demise and were forced to sell at losses just to keep people employed and paid.

It is going to take a long time for uranium prices to recover.  There is STILL way too much above ground supply looking for a home.  Japan not only cancelled contracts on their material but have sold material that they can't use.  Over saturation, much to the delight of the Chinese who have been sitting back and hitting distressed bids to feed their nuclear renaissance.  Unlike most metals, China is dependant upon imports for uranium.  This has been a perfect storm for them.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

These threads are so depressing.  What do you do when half the country is functionally illiterate in terms of sorting fact from fiction?  It's not going to end well.

Edited by Dinsy Ejotuz
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Dinsy Ejotuz said:

What do you do when half the country is functionally illiterate in terms of sorting fact from fiction? 

My wife and I were discussing this very subject not an hour ago. Not sure what the answer is.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, General Malaise said:

Oh, really?  I've shown my math.  Show me yours.

Math?  MATH?   

MATH?????

 

WE CAN'T EVEN GET THE MOST BASIC OF LOGIC RIGHT!!! 

.

MATH???????

/ Jim Mora, Patriot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, General Malaise said:

Uranium as a commodity is so downtrodden that it's asinine to be using it as a political football.  And yet, here we are.

It's so downtroddden that Putin was willing to spend millions , bribe and extort to get a small share of the US market...maybe he should have listened to General Malaise's view first...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Rove! said:

It's so downtroddden that Putin was willing to spend millions , bribe and extort to get a small share of the US market...maybe he should have listened to General Malaise's view first...

there used to be a gold thread in the FFA. it's exponentially more irrational.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Dinsy Ejotuz said:

These threads are so depressing.  What do you do when half the country is functionally illiterate in terms of sorting fact from fiction?  It's not going to end well.

Great point and I'm glad you brought it up!  The Democrats have a real problem on their hands with their voting base.  

Edited by MaxThreshold

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, MaxThreshold said:

Great point and I'm glad you brought it up!  The Democrats have a real problem on their hands with their voting base.  

Swing and a miss.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Rove! said:

It's so downtroddden that Putin was willing to spend millions , bribe and extort to get a small share of the US market...maybe he should have listened to General Malaise's view first...

Donny, you're outta your element.  Argue away in futility with others over any number of things, but I will embarrass you if you attempt to engage in discussion about uranium, especially if you continue to believe in this nonsense.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.