RebKell's Junkie Boards
Board Junkies Forums
 
Log in Register FAQ Memberlist Search RebKell's Junkie Boards Forum Index

Unpacking Uranium One

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    RebKell's Junkie Boards Forum Index » Area 51
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
pilight



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 55278
Location: Where the action is


Back to top
PostPosted: 11/03/17 1:59 pm    ::: Unpacking Uranium One Reply Reply with quote

https://lawfareblog.com/unpacking-uranium-one-hype-and-law

Quote:
One final point—the CFIUS process has been around for a while. Most of the cases are relatively routine. Mitigation measures are often standard, with a little bit of crafting to meet a specific case. A regular meeting has career civil servants in attendance, not political appointees.



_________________
He defends the cause of the fatherless and the widow, and loves the foreigner residing among you, giving them food and clothing. And you are to love those who are foreigners, for you yourselves were foreigners
justintyme



Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 6613
Location: Northfield, MN


Back to top
PostPosted: 11/03/17 2:55 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Don't you hate when the facts get in the way of a good conspiracy theory?



_________________
Covfefe when the walls fell.
ArtBest23



Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 12271



Back to top
PostPosted: 11/03/17 3:43 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

justintyme wrote:
Don't you hate when the facts get in the way of a good conspiracy theory?


What? You don't think it's "racketeering"? Laughing Laughing Laughing


Stonington_QB



Joined: 05 Jul 2013
Posts: 307
Location: Your safe space


Back to top
PostPosted: 12/21/17 9:48 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Looks like we're not quite done unpacking it yet...

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/prosecutors-ask-fbi-agents-info-uranium-one-deal-n831436


justintyme



Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 6613
Location: Northfield, MN


Back to top
PostPosted: 12/21/17 11:53 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

What a shocker, Trump's stoogie is pushing this non-story even more.



_________________
Covfefe when the walls fell.
Stonington_QB



Joined: 05 Jul 2013
Posts: 307
Location: Your safe space


Back to top
PostPosted: 12/21/17 1:24 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Maybe you don't like it, but your little "hero" over there is a criminal and deserves to be in jail. Even though I still doubt she will ever have to face a judge.


justintyme



Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 6613
Location: Northfield, MN


Back to top
PostPosted: 12/21/17 1:33 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Stonington_QB wrote:
Maybe you don't like it, but your little "hero" over there is a criminal and deserves to be in jail. Even though I still doubt she will ever have to face a judge.

I think it likely that she has done something shady during her years in politics that crossed a line and may have broken a law. She seemed to spend a lot of time in the gray area so that would not surprise me.

However, Uranium One, as has been pointed out by just about every fact checker out there and even just a common sense understanding of how that whole deal worked, is absolutely not one of them. The only reason it is even a thing is a clear political attempt to discredit Mueller as he gets closer and closer to the disgusting lump of orange flesh sitting in the Oval Office.



_________________
Covfefe when the walls fell.
Stonington_QB



Joined: 05 Jul 2013
Posts: 307
Location: Your safe space


Back to top
PostPosted: 12/21/17 3:58 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

justintyme wrote:
Stonington_QB wrote:
Maybe you don't like it, but your little "hero" over there is a criminal and deserves to be in jail. Even though I still doubt she will ever have to face a judge.

I think it likely that she has done something shady during her years in politics that crossed a line and may have broken a law. She seemed to spend a lot of time in the gray area so that would not surprise me.

However, Uranium One, as has been pointed out by just about every fact checker out there and even just a common sense understanding of how that whole deal worked, is absolutely not one of them. The only reason it is even a thing is a clear political attempt to discredit Mueller as he gets closer and closer to the disgusting lump of orange flesh sitting in the Oval Office.

Well this is why there is going to be an investigation. Now we will have real facts, and not just from "fact checkers."

As far as Mueller is concerned, not only has he not come up with ANYTHING on President Trump yet, but he's basing that entire investigation on a fake dossier. Mueller may be in some serious hot water very soon, which is why I am confident that his investigation won't be going on for much longer.

With regards to the common sense understanding, it would appear that Hillary Clinton is the only person who has benefited financially from this whole arrangement. The upcoming investigation will uncover any wrongdoing by all involved parties and hopefully will bring them to justice.

In the interest of justice, we should be happy that people who think they are above the law could pay for their crimes. We will see what happens once this DOJ investigation is concluded. Until then, I am not going to make any assumptions at all about the outcome.


GlennMacGrady



Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 4287
Location: Heisenberg


Back to top
PostPosted: 12/21/17 4:00 pm    ::: Re: Unpacking Uranium One Reply Reply with quote

pilight wrote:
https://lawfareblog.com/unpacking-uranium-one-hype-and-law

Quote:
One final point—the CFIUS process has been around for a while. Most of the cases are relatively routine. Mitigation measures are often standard, with a little bit of crafting to meet a specific case. A regular meeting has career civil servants in attendance, not political appointees.


This article is not an examination of the factual, legal or ethical issues relating to the $135 million in donations to the Clinton Foundation by parties related to the Uranium One deal or to the huge speaking fees Bill Clinton got around the same time from Russian sources. The author specifically acknowledges this by saying: "I focus exclusively on the transfer and the U.S. government's approval of it. I am not, in this post, considering the evidence—such as it is—of donations to the Clinton Foundation."

Th author then proceeds to summarize the publicly known procedures of CFIUS, which everyone has always known. That doesn't answer all, or perhaps any, of the many legal and ethical questions surrounding the avalanche of Uranium One-related money poured into the Clinton Foundation and Bill Clinton's pockets, nor does it answer the perhaps more important questions as to whether the Obama DOJ and FBI investigated these matters impartially and apolitically.
justintyme



Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 6613
Location: Northfield, MN


Back to top
PostPosted: 12/21/17 4:42 pm    ::: Re: Unpacking Uranium One Reply Reply with quote

GlennMacGrady wrote:
pilight wrote:
https://lawfareblog.com/unpacking-uranium-one-hype-and-law

Quote:
One final point—the CFIUS process has been around for a while. Most of the cases are relatively routine. Mitigation measures are often standard, with a little bit of crafting to meet a specific case. A regular meeting has career civil servants in attendance, not political appointees.


This article is not an examination of the factual, legal or ethical issues relating to the $135 million in donations to the Clinton Foundation by parties related to the Uranium One deal or to the huge speaking fees Bill Clinton got around the same time from Russian sources. The author specifically acknowledges this by saying: "I focus exclusively on the transfer and the U.S. government's approval of it. I am not, in this post, considering the evidence—such as it is—of donations to the Clinton Foundation."

Th author then proceeds to summarize the publicly known procedures of CFIUS, which everyone has always known. That doesn't answer all, or perhaps any, of the many legal and ethical questions surrounding the avalanche of Uranium One-related money poured into the Clinton Foundation and Bill Clinton's pockets, nor does it answer the perhaps more important questions as to whether the Obama DOJ and FBI investigated these matters impartially and apolitically.

The issue is that for something to be quid pro quo, there needs to be quo. By examining the "publicly known procedures of CFIUS, which everyone has always known", we can demonstrably say that Clinton had no way to provide a quo for any quid she may have received, even if she did receive questionable donations (which has been refuted in its own right since just about all of that money came from Frank Guistra, who had sold all his shares of Uranium One in 2007, 18 months before Clinton became Secretary of State).



_________________
Covfefe when the walls fell.
PUmatty



Joined: 10 Nov 2004
Posts: 14008
Location: Chicago


Back to top
PostPosted: 12/21/17 5:44 pm    ::: Re: Unpacking Uranium One Reply Reply with quote

justintyme wrote:
GlennMacGrady wrote:
pilight wrote:
https://lawfareblog.com/unpacking-uranium-one-hype-and-law

Quote:
One final point—the CFIUS process has been around for a while. Most of the cases are relatively routine. Mitigation measures are often standard, with a little bit of crafting to meet a specific case. A regular meeting has career civil servants in attendance, not political appointees.


This article is not an examination of the factual, legal or ethical issues relating to the $135 million in donations to the Clinton Foundation by parties related to the Uranium One deal or to the huge speaking fees Bill Clinton got around the same time from Russian sources. The author specifically acknowledges this by saying: "I focus exclusively on the transfer and the U.S. government's approval of it. I am not, in this post, considering the evidence—such as it is—of donations to the Clinton Foundation."

Th author then proceeds to summarize the publicly known procedures of CFIUS, which everyone has always known. That doesn't answer all, or perhaps any, of the many legal and ethical questions surrounding the avalanche of Uranium One-related money poured into the Clinton Foundation and Bill Clinton's pockets, nor does it answer the perhaps more important questions as to whether the Obama DOJ and FBI investigated these matters impartially and apolitically.

The issue is that for something to be quid pro quo, there needs to be quo. By examining the "publicly known procedures of CFIUS, which everyone has always known", we can demonstrably say that Clinton had no way to provide a quo for any quid she may have received, even if she did receive questionable donations (which has been refuted in its own right since just about all of that money came from Frank Guistra, who had sold all his shares of Uranium One in 2007, 18 months before Clinton became Secretary of State).


Isn't that just what a sneaky criminal mastermind would do?

Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes


Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    RebKell's Junkie Boards Forum Index » Area 51 All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB 2.0.17 © 2001- 2004 phpBB Group
phpBB Template by Vjacheslav Trushkin