Slashdot Mirror
Do Russian Uranium Deals Threaten World Supply Security?
Lasrick writes: A recent article in the New York Times notes that the Russian state nuclear corporation Rosatom and associated firms are gaining control of a growing number of uranium resources and mining operations. The article, headlined Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation Amid Russian Uranium Deal focuses on donations to charities connected to former US President Bill Clinton and his family, made by businessmen who stood to profit from the sale of Uranium One, a Canadian company with worldwide uranium-mining interests. But a major premise of the article is that Russian uranium control threatens the security of the global uranium supply. Steve Fetter and Erich Schneider demolish the idea that Russian control of uranium stocks is a threat to global security.
or threatens profit transfer from one company to another?
by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
Smells like somebody's trying to Swiftboat the Clintons.
The Clintons are giving the swiftboaters plenty of ammunition. This certainly has the appearance of a sleazy deal. Mostly this sort of stuff just makes the people that hate Hillary, hate her even more, while having no effect on the people that like her. But eventually all these reports are going to have an effect on swing voters.
"Completely" wrong? No, it is quite right to suspect her. With government officials the famous legal standard is — or ought to be — backwards: guilty until proven innocent. With the amount of sheer power and influence the Executive government has, they must be constantly under scrutiny, and any time there is a suspicion, then must be presumed guilty. These cases are all the same:
We, the people, do not — or should not — have to prove their guilt, they must be proving innocence instead. And until they do, they must be deemed guilty of the worst crime reasonably suspected. For example: could the shooting have been malicious, or the could "lost" e-mails have contained evidence of rape or treason? If yes, than the charges of murder, rape, and treason ought to stand against all involved until innocence is proven.
Nonsense. She was the most influential person on that panel and among the 10 most influential members of the government. Her approval or lack thereof was, in all likelihood, the deciding factor.
Except the foundation is a slush fund . In 2013, for example, it took in $140mln, but spent only $9 mln on actual charity:
It does not need to be a source of direct financial enrichment — it is perfectly fine as a vehicle for power.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
I'm gonna have to go with a [citation needed] for most of that.
Starting with this one:
The State Department is trying to delay the release of her emails until AFTER the election.
No, they're trying to delay until January 2016, a full 10 months BEFORE the election, even before the primaries. If there's anything damaging in there, it'll be far worse for her and Democrats if there's something serious enough for her to quit the race since she's effectively the only person running. Getting the e-mails out now turns it into a non-story by then since they'll have already been released.
Someone's trying to use Hillary's "What difference does it make?" defense.
The original story was that she influenced the sale in exchange for donations. Now the response from her defenders is "So what? We have plenty of uranium".
Nice attempt at changing the subject; I say "What difference does it make if there's plenty of uranium ore, the deal still looks shady"
Sure, if by "never contacted" you mean "given lots of money, along with other people on the panel, to vote a specific way".
Are you really so naive? You don't even have to dislike the clintons to understand the fundamental flow of money involved here and just how easy it is for that to have an effect on the results.
It's also stupid on the face of things to claim Clinton had no influence when donations to her charity fell drastically after she left the state dept... You don't need a tinfoil hat to pick up the subtle single there.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
The only reason she has any power or credibility what so ever is because of Feminists.
FTFY.
Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
She broke no laws, violated no ethics,
She ran a private email server, against government rules. Illegal.
She deleted emails AFTER they were subpoenaed by Congress. Illegal.
She sent secret intelligence documents to Sidney Blumenthall, who is not a government employee and doesn't have clearance. Illegal.
She told Congress she had 1 private emails account, NYT found a second one, making her a liar to Congress. Illegal.
She took bribes according to one of my sources and it is up to her to prove differently by releasing her deleted emails (see Harry Reid's false accusation against Romney for not paying tax to understand the sarcasm). Illegal
We can go on all day, but you repeated false talking points just makes the left seem even more desperate than ever. You SHOULD be throwing her under the bus and quickly getting a different nominee. But if you don't want to, thats fine, give the GOP the White House without having to even try. Hint: Its not the GOP attacking Clinton its people who want Elizabeth Warren to run, but will only run after Clinton drops out.