NDA lifted for FBI informant----Uranium One

[Blake]

Can't wait to see how the diehards downplay this...

They're just protecting our 1st amendment rights with the 2nd amendment, amirite dmc

[boutons_deux]

The pain the Snopes author must have felt having to add this:

Update

On 17 October 2017, The Hill reported obtaining evidence that Vadim Mikerin, a Russian official who oversaw the American operations of the Russian nuclear agency Rosatom, was being investigated for corruption by multiple U.S. agencies while the Uranium One deal was up for approval — information that apparently was not shared with U.S. officials involved in approving the transaction. The Hill also reported receiving do ents and eyewitness testimony “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,” although no specifics about who those Russian nuclear officials were or how the money was allegedly routed to the Clinton Foundation were given. In any case, none of these revelations prove that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton participated in a quid pro quo agreement to accept payment for approval of the Uranium One deal.

pain? from what?

what Snopes facts can you refute?

[SpursforSix]

LOL Snopes.

No . Snopes went from verifying urban legends to being the expert on world events/politics.

[spurraider21]

The pain the Snopes author must have felt having to add this:

Update

On 17 October 2017, The Hill reported obtaining evidence that Vadim Mikerin, a Russian official who oversaw the American operations of the Russian nuclear agency Rosatom, was being investigated for corruption by multiple U.S. agencies while the Uranium One deal was up for approval — information that apparently was not shared with U.S. officials involved in approving the transaction. The Hill also reported receiving do ents and eyewitness testimony “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,” although no specifics about who those Russian nuclear officials were or how the money was allegedly routed to the Clinton Foundation were given. In any case, none of these revelations prove that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton participated in a quid pro quo agreement to accept payment for approval of the Uranium One deal.

Why painful? They seem to be doing the right thing and updating findings with new information. Somehow that's to be mocked or frowned upon?

[Chucho]

I'm fine with all of its being investigated. You aren't. You can't even answer questions about any of them.

Not going back and forth with you = insinuation of partisans bias.

[Pavlov]

Not going back and forth with you = insinuation of partisans bias.

Just pointing out your hypocrisy. Not answering questions good now -- to you.

[Chucho]

Just pointing out your hypocrisy. Not answering questions good now -- to you.

Not so much as collusion is for you.

[Pavlov]

Not so much as collusion is for you.

Explain the collusion here -- oh, that's right. You won't.

[Chucho]

Explain the collusion here -- oh, that's right. You won't.

I'm not doing your homework for you. You seem smart enough to know about what you're denying.

[Pavlov]

I'm not doing your homework for you. You seem smart enough to know about what you're denying.

You're not going to explain it because you can't.

I understand why you don't even want to try.

[Spurminator]

So Russia, who's the "bad guy" in the Left's narrative of election collusion, isn't an issue when it comes to the Obama Administration allowing a sweetheart deal in controlling a large sum of substance used for making nukes that links back to Clinton/Russia "friendliness" that, at the very least, is as plausible in collusion, as Trump/Russia collusion is, along with the Russian Dossier funding coming to light?

It's not plausible to think there's collusion going on with both Parties?

Certainly plausible, in fact probable, that collusion and bribery happen with both parties. Just my observation that the alt-right web seems indignant that this story isn't somehow making the Trump/Russia story disappear. It's another example of what I said before... any story with "Clinton" or "Obama" and "Russia" in the headline gets pulled up front by the fringe right as if it has anything to do with (or replaces) the current Russia narrative. The allegations of Trump/Russia collusion are about (likely) our susceptibility to foreign influence on our news and elections and (unlikely long shot) the legitimacy of an election. The stakes are higher with that story.

Investigate away. I have no preconceived opinion about the legitimacy of this story or potential wrongdoing. Just don't get your stories mixed up.

[Spurminator]

Strange then that is being reported by CNN, WaPo, NYT, The Hill etc etc etc

I never said it wasn't a story. Just not one that probably merits more than a lack of replies

[Spurminator]

Why painful? They seem to be doing the right thing and updating findings with new information. Somehow that's to be mocked or frowned upon?

The new standard is retract nothing, double down, maintain your fringe paranoid audience for them sweet sweet clicks.

[TSA]

Why painful? They seem to be doing the right thing and updating findings with new information. Somehow that's to be mocked or frowned upon?

They haven't changed the OP to unproven and it still reads false. Adding a footnote is a step in the right direction.

[Pavlov]

They haven't changed the OP to unproven and it still reads false. Adding a footnote is a step in the right direction.

It's still false. Feel free to prove it.

[boutons_deux]

"it still reads false."

what a partisan piece of you are.

[TSA]

It's still false. Feel free to prove it.

The informant what's his name hasn't even testified how can you claim it's false?

[Pavlov]

No one actually gives a about muh uranium security.

[Pavlov]

The informant what's his name hasn't even testified how can you claim it's false?

Because there is zero evidence this deal would have been scuttled had some other element of unproven crimes been revealed. That's all anonymous is going to talk about.

Not one person is now saying the US needs to take muh uranium back from Russian "control" -- why is that, TSA?

[TSA]

Because there is zero evidence this deal would have been scuttled had some other element of unproven crimes been revealed. That's all anonymous is going to talk about.

Not one person is now saying the US needs to take muh uranium back from Russian "control" -- why is that, TSA?

You think that deal would have gone through if the FBI hadn't hidden the crimes that were uncovered? LOL

[Pavlov]

You think that deal would have gone through if the FBI hadn't hidden the crimes that were uncovered? LOL

Since it was a money laundering/kickback scheme done through trucking companies, I'm not sure how that affects muh uranium once you take the guy out.

Your contention is there were more actual crimes. If they were a security risk to muh uranium then why are they not a security risk to muh uranium now?

[TSA]

[Pavlov]

ar15.com

Looks like the FBI is totally covering everything up -- just like they did in Vegas, right?

[boutons_deux]

Jeffrey Toobin: ‘This Whole Uranium One Thing Comes From Fox News’

CNN’s Jeffrey Toobin came out swinging at Fox News as the foremost and original propagator of the re-heated scandal saying,

“Remember,

this whole ‘Uranium’ thing comes from Fox News.

I mean,

this is a closed investigation

that came up in Peter Schweizer’s book “Clinton Cash” in 2015, and

it was discredited then…”

Camerota then clarified by interjecting “It’s from 2010, by the way. That’s when things first started happening.”

Toobin then went deep, saying:

The book came out in 2015.

Exactly, The book came out in 2015.

It was one of the accusations—it has been discredited.

Two years later, Fox News and Republicans in Congress and Republicans in the White House start raising it simply as a way to wave Russia back at the Democrats.

There’s nothing new, no new information here.

You have the president of the United States, apparently, according to CNN reporting intervening with the justice Department saying get us more witnesses on this.

This is precisely why in the post-Nixon era,

there were rules in place to get the White House out of criminal investigations.

They are not supposed to be involved in making those sorts of decisions.

This White House is changing the rules.

https://www.mediaite.com/tv/jeffrey-...from-fox-news/

"changing the rules?" Repugs don't give a about rules, laws, regulations, protocol, conventions. Proof? racist political hack Sessions is the US AG

[spurraider21]

BOOM

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=263215

TSA can you explain how this boom is bigger than this older boom?