• Current Events & Politics
    Welcome Guest
    Please read before posting:
    Forum Guidelines Bluelight Rules
  • Current Events & Politics Moderators: deficiT | tryptakid | Foreigner

US Politics The Mueller Investigation - report is out

Sorry I guess I'm too young to remember president Flynn...

You keep selectively ignoring parts of my post to make stupid comparisons. Like I say it's absurd for the president to worry about a casual misstatements putting him in jail because of cops pointing out contradicting statements clearly made without thinking. So you point out an advisor deliberately lying and getting no real punishment at all as somehow proving your point. When the only point it proves is mine. It's a stupid waste of time. If you act like the presidents gonna wind up in jail because of some situation akin to an ordinary person without representation ending up in trouble in say, a murder investigation, it's clear your position is too silly to bother taking seriously. Especially when you're acting like Trump is too powerless to be open and transparent, so clearly he should act even more irrational and try to fire the people who are supposedly more powerful. Some arguments are too detached from reality to bother with.
 
I don't think you understand the methods dirty cops use to be able to bust people. You also don't understand what happened with Flynn. Flynn and dirty cop Strzok were discussing a meeting that was LEGAL but because Strzok and co (according to their text messages) had the agenda to find something to charge Trump's people with, they use a very creative way of interviewing him to catch him out in a 'lie'. Let's forget that Clinton, Abedin, Mills all lied to the same FBI agent (and that was based on an actual crimes), they wanted Flynn on perjury and they got him. That's one reason you should be very concerned about being interviewed by a cop that wants to take you down. So yea they would absolute love to interview Trump and get him on some bullshit like lying to the FBI, and if they did you would be behind that charge 100%.

Also I'd appreciate it if you stopped making snarky comments like that. Everything is too insane or beneath you to discuss, it's an ad hom and it's annoying. If you feel this way, do not comment. If you choose to comment, then keep those thoughts to yourself. Thanks.
 
You replied to my comment, which had nothing to do with you. Perhaps you should keep your thoughts to yourself.

Youre right though that there's no point in my continuing this side discussion with you. So I won't.
 
Jgrimez, these primers might be more useful.
Independent Counsels, Special Prosecutors,Special Counsels, and the Role of Congress

This Trump-Russia Investigation Could Last For Years
The full list of known indictments and plea deals in Mueller?s probe

1) George Papadopoulos, former Trump campaign foreign policy adviser, pleaded guilty in October to making false statements to the FBI.
2) Michael Flynn, Trump?s former national security adviser, pleaded guilty in December to making false statements to the FBI.
3) Paul Manafort, Trump?s former campaign chair, was indicted in October in Washington, DC on charges of conspiracy, money laundering, false statements, and failure to disclose foreign assets ? all related to his work for Ukrainian politicians before he joined the Trump campaign. He?s pleaded not guilty on all counts. Then, in February, Mueller filed a new case against him in Virginia, with tax, financial, and bank fraud charges.
4) Rick Gates, a former Trump campaign aide and Manafort?s longtime junior business partner, was indicted on similar charges to Manafort. But he has now agreed to a plea deal with Mueller?s team, pleading guilty to just one false statements charge and one conspiracy charge.
5-20) 13 Russian nationals and threeRussian companies were indicted on conspiracy charges, with some also being accused of identity theft. The charges related to a Russian propaganda effort designed to interfere with the 2016 campaign. The companies involved are the Internet Research Agency, often described as a ?Russian troll farm,? and two other companies that helped finance it. The Russian nationals indicted include 12 of the agency?s employees and its alleged financier, Yevgeny Prigozhin.
21) Richard Pinedo: This California man pleaded guilty to an identity theft charge in connection with the Russian indictments, and has agreed to cooperate with Mueller.
22) Alex van der Zwaan: This London lawyer pleaded guilty to making false statements to the FBI about his contacts with Rick Gates and another unnamed person based in Ukraine.

What they did was post FB ads and memes. One of them was Jesus arm wrestling with Satan. Some were of Kitty Kat memes, some were pro-Sanders, some anti-Hillary and they even organized an anti-Trump rally! Michael Moore attended it, why isn't he being investigated. A lot of what they posted was after the election. So even if you wish to claim that these FB posts (some had approx. 20 likes) altered the result of the election (lol),
Mark Zukerberg must be really bored!

what does that have to do with Trump?
It's a popular misconception that the Mueller investigation is only about Trump.

Why are they investigating him? See above.

Can you give me one good reason, with any evidence at all, that doesn't lead back to the claim "well we don't know what Mueller has" ? See above.
 
Is this multiple choice? I wasn't sure why you formatted it like this?!?

A. In the [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States said:
United States[/URL], the Whiskey Ring was a scandal, exposed in 1875, involving diversion of tax revenues in a conspiracy among government agents, politicians, whiskeydistillers, and distributors. The scheme involved an extensive network of bribes involving distillers, rectifiers, gaugers, storekeepers, and internal revenue agents. Essentially, distillers bribed government officials, and those officials helped the distillers evade federal taxes on the whiskey they produced and sold.





B. The Star Route scandal involved a lucrative 19th-century scheme whereby United States postal officials received bribes in exchange for awarding postal delivery contracts in southern and western areas.





C. The "Teapot Dome Scandal" was a government scandal that took place in the United States during 1921?1923, and was a bribery incident involving the administration of then President Warren G. Harding. Secretary of the Interior Albert Bacon Fall had leased Navy petroleumreserves at Teapot Dome in Wyoming and two other locations in California to private oil companies at low rates without competitive bidding.





D. The Watergate scandal was a major political scandalthat occurred in the United States during the early 1970s, following a break-in by five men at the Democratic National Committee (DNC) headquarters at the Watergate office complex in Washington, D.C. on June 17, 1972, and President Richard Nixon's administration's subsequent attempt to cover up its involvement.

The answer is D.
 
I know this isn't exactly an intelligent response. But the fact that anyone supports Trump is beyond absurd. It doesn't matter if you're liberal, conservative or anything inbetween or off the spectrum altogether - it doesn't matter if it suits your agenda for Trump to remain in power; he's simply an objectively bad president and a bad human being. He's a liar and a cheater. He's a tax evader. He welches on business payments/deals. He's a terrible human being. And he's doing a terrible job as the President. The joker never even took a public office before this - he is quite literally not qualified for the position.

Anyone defending him is doing so out of some dishonest reason or another. There is absolutely zero honest basis for defending Trump.
 
^ While that seems valid emough you should remember that theres so many reasons for ppl to form their opinions on anything including the performance of Trump in this job he got.

For a start, some might support him simply because he is the President and as a Head of State he automatically gets support.

Maybe he gets support because he isnt Hillary Clinton and knocked her out at the election, what he does from there isn't important as just not Hilary.

Some may just like him as he is entertaining and pretty funny to watch on tv. An American mate said she likes him as hes better value for something to watch than Obama ever was so she support him.

Trump is just Trump. Hes got supporters and fans, its not really anyones place to say what they support is stupid even if it is.


Because it is.
 
I know this isn't exactly an intelligent response. But the fact that anyone supports Trump is beyond absurd. It doesn't matter if you're liberal, conservative or anything inbetween or off the spectrum altogether - it doesn't matter if it suits your agenda for Trump to remain in power; he's simply an objectively bad president and a bad human being. He's a liar and a cheater. He's a tax evader. He welches on business payments/deals. He's a terrible human being. And he's doing a terrible job as the President. The joker never even took a public office before this - he is quite literally not qualified for the position.

Anyone defending him is doing so out of some dishonest reason or another. There is absolutely zero honest basis for defending Trump.

Never assume someone is either lying or right. Some people honestly believe something no matter how clearly wrong it is. Lots of people in fact. Even I think saying there's no honest reason to like him is a little much. And I really hate the guy.
 
Can you give me one good reason, with any evidence at all, that doesn't lead back to the claim "well we don't know what Mueller has" ? See above.

I would not class making false statements as anything substantial. It's the weakest thing you can get someone on.

Why are they investigating him? See above.

I still don't know. The crime is having Russian friends? Or is there something to do with the election..
 
Making false statements is pretty serious. It's one thing to lie in government that's not only expected its virtually mandatory. But being caught in a lie, an absolute non untrue statement of fact you couldn't have possibly have made in error or misinterpreted.. Then it's serious.
 
My point, which I've made multiple times in this thread, is that the Mueller investigation isn't just about Trump. I'm sure he sees it that way, but it's also about foreign entities interfering in the presidential election as well as other elections.

I would think any American would care about that issue. But that's just me.

I post documents filed through the judicial system. They are not rumors or theories.

And anyone who thinks that important information would leak from the Mueller team must have known about Mike Flynn, Paul Manafort, Rick Gates, George Papadopolous, the raid on Michael Cohen and a number of other bombshells that seemed to surprise even Trump.

Maybe he doesn't have Q level clearance. :D

To address the Manafort holding out for a presidential pardon rumor, which interests me:

1) presidential pardons only work for federal crimes. I'm sure a gift-wrapped package will land on a state DA's doorstep if Manafort is given one. (He's being tried in two federal courts as of now.)

2) Rick Gates, who is Manafort's right hand man has flipped. He knows what Manafort knows for the most part. I therefore agree with the opinion that Manafort is being made an example of what happens when you are a dirty money laundering, election-rigging monster who doesn't cooperate.

3) As an aside, Manafort has worked with some of the nastiest world leaders in modern history. I'm guessing they have explained what they will do if he cooperates.

When Manafort joined Trump?s campaign last year, he was best known for running what had become colloquially as the ?torturers? lobby.? For decades, Manafort stood as one of the foremost lobbyists spinning foreign dictatorships for American audiences, with a 1992 report from the Center for Public Integrity singling out Manafort and his team for helping whitewash ?human rights-abusing nations.? Of Manafort?s lobbying firm, known as Black, Manafort, one journalist at the time wrote, ?The well-compensated flacks at Black, Manafort stand at the pinnacle of organizational apologism. Name a corrupt despot, and Black, Manafort will name the account[.]?

Manafort?s long and sordid history of working for the world?s worst people

Interesting choice for a campaign chairman. Mobutu Sese Seko's spin doctor and the list goes on... and oddly leads to Putin.

Finally, Mueller's team is made up of some of the most formidable prosecutors ever assembled. Some left very lucrative private practice because Mueller asked. His reputation is apolitical, he enjoys broad and deep bipartisan support, and he's no fool.

Trump thinks people who work in public service can't hack it in the private sector. It's fun to watch him find out how wrong he is.

I'm sure his lead attorney told him that, just before he quit. I'm sure Trump is just taking his time choosing another lawyer, of all the ones fighting for the position. :D
 
Finally, Mueller's team is made up of some of the most formidable prosecutors ever assembled. Some left very lucrative private practice because Mueller asked. His reputation is apolitical, he enjoys broad and deep bipartisan support, and he's no fool.
lol.
So Mueller's a stand-up guy because he's directing a witch hunt/coup against the president which is being masqueraded as an investigation into foreign election interference? The facts prove this narrative false.
Mueller was the head of the FBI when individuals linked to the Russian government were using illegal means to take control of a uranium transport company. Mueller did nothing about this (he even personally handed over a uranium sample to Russian officials) and did not recommend that Clinton/Obama stop a deal that gave the Russian government control of 20% of US uranium capacity. It's amusing to hear Democrats explain why this deal was completely OK, however they will not answer the question of would Trump be accused of collusion if he was caught doing the same thing. This was around the same time that Bill Clinton met personally with Putin at his residence in Russia, and received $500,000 for a speech from a bank with Kremlin ties. However that is definitely NOT Russian collusion, because reasons..


Mueller's warning: Many news stories on Trump-Russia probe are wrong

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/apr/16/robert-mueller-many-news-stories-trump-russia-prob/

Special Counsel Robert Mueller's office is warning that ?many? news articles on the Trump-Russia probe have been wrong.

The statement from a spokesperson did not single out particular stories. But the warning did come after media inquiries about a McClatchy News story on Friday that said Mr. Mueller has evidence that President Trump's personal attorney, Michael Cohen, did in fact travel to Prague in 2016 as alleged by the Christopher Steele dossier.

?What I have been telling all reporters is that many stories about our investigation have been inaccurate,? the Mueller spokesperson said. ?Be very cautious about any source that claims to have knowledge about our investigation and dig deep into what they claim before reporting on it. If another outlet reports something, don?t run with it unless you have your own sourcing to back it up.?

The statement was reported by the Daily Caller and confirmed by The Washington Times.

The McClatchy story on Friday lit up liberal media outlets since, if true, it would confirm a major charge by the British ex-spy. Mr. Steele wrote that Mr. Cohen traveled secretly to Prague in August 2016 to meet Vladimir Putin aides to conspire to cover up Russian hacking of Democratic Party computers. In other words: Trump-Russia collusion.

There has been no official or press confirmation of Mr. Steele?s Prague allegation nor of a number of other Steele collusion charges. His work was financed by the Democratic National Committee and the Hillary Clinton campaign.
 
Of course a lot of news stories about the Mueller investigation are wrong. There aren't any leaks on the team. Derp.

As for the debunked uranium conspiracy theory, here's another few articles about it.

I know it's a long post, but I'm just going to refer back to it when the woodwork empties out here.

The Facts on Uranium One

Two House committees have said that they will investigate the Obama administration?s approval of a deal that gave Russia a financial interest in U.S. uranium production.

The 2010 deal allowed Rosatom, the Russian nuclear energy agency, to acquire a controlling stake in Uranium One, a Canadian-based company with mining stakes in the Western United States.

We covered it during the 2016 presidential campaign, when Donald Trump falsely accused former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton of giving away U.S. uranium rights to the Russians and claimed ? without evidence ? that it was done in exchange for donations to the Clinton Foundation.

Now, the issue is back in the news, and numerous readers have asked us about it again. So we will recap here what we know ? and don?t know ? about the 2010 deal.

The Deal

On June 8, 2010, Uranium One announced it had signed an agreement that would give ?not less than 51%? of the company to JSC Atomredmetzoloto, or ARMZ, the mining arm of Rosatom, the Russian nuclear energy agency.

At the time, Uranium One?s two licensed mining operations in Wyoming amounted to about ?20 percent of the currently licensed uranium in-situ recovery production capacity in the U.S.,? according to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. In-situ recovery is the extraction method currently used by 10 of the 11 licensed U.S. uranium producers.

Uranium One also has exploration projects in Arizona, Colorado and Utah.

But the deal required multiple approvals by the U.S., beginning with the Committee on Foreign Investments in the United States. Under federal law, the committee reviews foreign investments that raise potential national security concerns.

The Committee on Foreign Investments in the United States

The Committee on Foreign Investments has nine members, including the secretaries of the treasury, state, defense, homeland security, commerce and energy; the attorney general; and representatives from two White House offices (the United States Trade Representative and the Office of Science and Technology Policy).

The committee can?t actually stop a sale from going through ? it can only approve a sale. The president is the only one who can stop a sale, if the committee or any one member ?recommends suspension or prohibition of the transaction,? according to guidelines issued by the Treasury Department in December 2008 after the department adopted its final rule a month earlier.

For this and other reasons, we have written that Trump is wrong to claim that Clinton ?gave away 20 percent of the uranium in the United States? to Russia. Clinton could have objected ? as could the eight other voting members ? but that objection alone wouldn?t have stopped the sale of the stake of Uranium One to Rosatom.

?Only the President has the authority to suspend or prohibit a covered transaction,? the federal guidelines say.

We don?t know much about the committee?s deliberations because there are ?strong confidentiality requirements? prohibiting disclosure of information filed with the committee, the Treasury Department says on its website. Some information would have become available if the committee or any one of its members objected to the sale. But none of the nine members objected.

?When a transaction is referred to the President, however, the decision of the President is announced publicly,? Treasury says.

We don?t even know if Clinton was involved in the committee?s review and approval of the uranium deal. Jose Fernandez, a former assistant secretary of state, told the New York Times that he represented the department on the committee. ?Mrs. Clinton never intervened with me on any C.F.I.U.S. matter,? he told the Times, referring to the committee by its acronym.

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission

It is also important to note that other federal approvals were needed to complete the deal, and even still more approvals would be needed to export the uranium.

First, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission had to approve the transfer of two uranium recovery licenses in Wyoming from Uranium One to the Russian company. The NRC announced it approved the transfer on Nov. 24, 2010. But, as the NRC explained at the time, ?no uranium produced at either facility may be exported.?

As NRC explained in a March 2011 letter to Republican Sen. John Barrasso of Wyoming, the Russian company would have to apply for and obtain an export license and ?commit to use the material only for peaceful purposes? in accordance with ?the U.S.-Russia Atomic Energy Act Section 123 agreement for peaceful nuclear cooperation.?

In a June 2015 letter to Rep. Peter Visclosky, the NRC said it granted RSB Logistics Services an amendment to its export license in 2012 to allow the Kentucky shipping company to export uranium to Canada from various sources ? including from a Uranium One site in Wyoming. The NRC said that the export license allowed RSB to ship uranium to a conversion plant in Canada and then back to the United States for further processing.

Canada must obtain U.S. approval to transfer any U.S. uranium to any country other than the United States, the letter says.

?Please be assured that no Uranium One, Inc.-produced uranium has been shipped directly to Russia and the U.S. Government has not authorized any country to re-transfer U.S. uranium to Russia,? the 2015 letter said.

?That 2015 statement remains true today,? David McIntyre, a spokesman for the NRC, told us in an email.

RSB Logistics? current export license, which expires in December, still lists Uranium One as one of its suppliers of uranium.

Uranium One, which is now wholly-owned subsidiary of Rosatom, sells uranium to civilian power reactors in the United States, according to the Energy Information Administration. But U.S. owners and operators of commercial nuclear reactors purchase the vast majority of their uranium from foreign sources. Only 11 percent of the 50.6 million pounds purchased in 2016 came from U.S. domestic producers, according to the EIA.

Although Uranium One once held 20 percent of licensed uranium in-situ recovery production capacity in the U.S., that?s no longer the case. There were only four in-situ recovery facilities licensed by the NRC in 2010. Currently, there are 10 such facilities, so Uranium One?s mining operations now account for an estimated 10 percent of in-situ recovery production capacity in the U.S., the NRC told us in an email.

As for production, the company was responsible for only about 11 percent of U.S. uranium production in 2014, according to 2015 congressional testimony by a Department of Energy contractor. More recently, Uranium One has been responsible for no more than 5.9 percent of domestic production, according to a September 2017 report by the U.S. International Trade Commission.

Clinton Foundation Donations and Bill Clinton Speaking Fee

Clinton?s role in the Uranium One sale, and the link to the Clinton Foundation, first became an issue in 2015, when news organizations received advance copies of the book ?Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich,? by Peter Schweizer, a former fellow at a conservative think tank.

On April 23, 2015, the New York Times wrote about the uranium issue, saying the paper had ?built upon? Schweizer?s information.

The Times detailed how the Clinton Foundation had received millions in donations from investors in Uranium One.

The donations from those with ties to Uranium One weren?t publicly disclosed by the Clinton Foundation, even though Hillary Clinton had an agreement with the White House that the foundation would disclose all contributors. Days after the Times story, the foundation acknowledged that it ?made mistakes,? saying it had disclosed donations from a Canadian charity, for instance, but not the donors to that charity who were associated with the uranium company.

The Times also wrote that Bill Clinton spoke at a conference in Moscow on June 29, 2010 ? which was after the Rosatom-Uranium One merger was announced in June 2010, but before it was approved by the Committee on Foreign Investments in the United States in October 2010. The Russian-based Renaissance Capital Group organized the conference and paid Clinton $500,000.

Renaissance Capital has ?ties to the Kremlin? and its analysts ?talked up Uranium One?s stock, assigning it a ?buy? rating and saying in a July 2010 research report that it was ?the best play? in the uranium markets,? the Times wrote.

But there is no evidence that the donations or the speaking fee had any influence on the approvals granted by the NRC or the Committee on Foreign Investments.

Back in the News

This arcane bit of campaign trivia resurfaced in the news after The Hill, a Capitol Hill newspaper, reported that a Russian spy sought to gain access to Hillary Clinton when she was secretary of state.

Lydia Guryev, who used the name ?Cynthia Murphy? while living in the United States, pleaded guilty to espionage charges in July 2010 and was forced to leave the U.S. Her guilty plea came after the Rosatom-Uranium One merger was announced and before the Committee on Foreign Investments approved it. But there was nothing about the merger in the federal criminal complaint or the press release announcing her guilty plea.

The criminal complaint said that Guryev had been working as a spy in the United States since the 1990s and took orders from the foreign intelligence organ of the Russian Federation in Moscow.

For example, Guryev was ordered in the spring of 2009, in advance of Obama?s upcoming trip to Russia, to get information on ?Obama?s goals which he expects to achieve during the summit [with Russia] in July,? the complaint said.

The only reference in the criminal complaint to Clinton was a veiled one. Federal agents said Guryev sought to get close with ?a personal friend of [a current Cabinet official, name omitted].? The Hill identified the cabinet official as Clinton.

The Hill story also rehashed an FBI investigation that resulted in ?charges against the Russian nuclear industry?s point man in the United States, TENEX director Vadim Mikerin, as well as a Russian financier and an American trucking executive whose company moved Russian uranium around the United States.?

In 2015, Mikerin was sentenced to 48 months and required to pay more than $2 million in restitution for conspiring to commit money laundering, according to the Justice Department.

The Hill quoted the attorney for a former FBI informant in the TENEX case as saying her client ?witnessed numerous, detailed conversations in which Russian actors described their efforts to lobby, influence or ingratiate themselves with the Clintons in hopes of winning favorable uranium decisions from the Obama administration.?

The convictions of Guryev and Mikerin are not new, and there?s no evidence that either case has any connection to the Rosatom-Uranium One merger. Nevertheless, the article has prompted the Republican chairmen of the House intelligence and oversight committees to announce a joint investigation of the merger.

On Fox News, Rep. Devin Nunes, the chairman of the House intelligence committee, said that ?we?ve been communicating back and forth through different channels? with the FBI informant in the TENEX case.

?You are talking about major decisions that were made at a time when we were resetting relations with Russia that actually happened to benefit, you know, the Clinton Foundation, perhaps other avenues, we don?t know yet,? Nunes said in an Oct. 24 interview with Bret Baier.

It may be that individuals and companies sought to curry favor with Hillary Clinton and even influence her department?s decision on the Uranium One sale. But, as we?ve written before, there is no evidence that donations to the Clinton Foundation from people with ties to Uranium One or Bill Clinton?s speaking fee influenced Hillary Clinton?s official actions. That?s still the case. We will update this article with any major developments.

Update, Nov. 1: This story has been updated to say that NRC now estimates that Uranium One?s mining operations account for about 10 percent of in-situ recovery production capacity in the U.S. That?s half of what it was in 2010, because more in-situ recovery mining operators have been licensed since 2010.

We also added that Uranium One is responsible for no more than 5.9 percent of domestic production, according to a September 2017 report by the U.S. International Trade Commission.

As for Mueller, here's another article debunking this ridiculous tale and the insignificance of Mueller's involvement.

This is how Republicans will try to distract you from Trump?s campaign manager being indicted

The intensification of Robert Mueller?s investigation into the Trump campaign?s potential collusion with Russia ? as the first indictments were handed down for President Donald Trump?s former campaign chairman Paul Manafort and former business associate Rick Gates ? has triggered an impassioned counter-narrative from the right. The reaction is seemingly coordinated, with similar arguments against Mueller appearing in the Wall Street Journal, the New York Post, Fox News, and Trump?s Twitter feed.

It?s all nonsense.

The purpose of the narrative is not accuracy but distraction. It?s a series of complex, interlocking claims with little connection to reality. But it?s the best the right can come up with to discredit Mueller and the outcome of his investigation.

If you spend any time on Twitter or Facebook, you?ll see these claims being made over and over again in the days ahead. This guide will help you make sense of the noise.

Uranium One

The Uranium One scandal refers to the 2010 sale of a controlling interest in Uranium One, a Canadian mining company, to Rosatom, a state-owned Russian corporation. Since the sale involved control of 20 percent of uranium reserves in the United States it required approval from the U.S. government.

The claim here is that Hillary Clinton, who was the Secretary of State at the time, approved the sale of Uranium One to Rosatom in exchange for $145 million in donations from Uranium One investors to the Clinton Foundation.

Here?s the truth: Hillary Clinton lacked the power to approve the sale, nearly all of the donations came from people who already divested in Uranium One, and the mines themselves have little strategic importance.

Clinton could not have approved or vetoed the sale.

In reality, Clinton had no ability to approve or reject the sale. Clinton?s involvement was as one of nine cabinet members of the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS). The role of CFIUS is to review transactions and present their finding to the president. Only the president can decide to block a sale for national security reasons.

In this case, none of the members of the committee objected to the sale of Uranium One, and President Barack Obama did not block it. The theory that Clinton was bought off through donations to the Clinton Foundation doesn?t explain the actions of the other eight members of the committee or the president.

Theoretically, Clinton could have discussed her views on the sale and lobbied other members. In reality, Clinton had no personal involvement in the sale or with CFIUS. She delegated her role on the committee to Assistant Secretary of State Jose Fernandez, who says Clinton never intervened on Uranium One or any other committee matters.

The timing of the donations to the Clinton Foundation don?t match up.

If you watch Fox News, you?ll hear that Uranium One investors donated $145 million to the Clinton Foundation. Almost all of that money, $131 million, came from Frank Giustra, who divested his stake in the company in 2007, three years before the sale at issue. Giustra did not stand to benefit from the sale.

Only one person associated with Uranium One, Ian Telfer, actually gave money ($1.25 million) to the Clinton Foundation during the window of time after Hillary Clinton became Secretary of State and before the Uranium One deal was approved. These funds from Telfer represent 0.8 percent of the total donations that are typically included in discussions of the scandal. There?s no evidence that Clinton had any role in the deal?s approval, and much less that Telfer?s relatively small donation influenced her role.

The sale did not have national security implications.

The sale of uranium mines to a state-owned Russian company sounds scandalous because uranium is used to make nuclear weapons.

But the U.S. mines owned by Uranium One do not contain quality uranium and are barely used; the Russians were interested in Uranium One largely for productive Uranium mines in Kazakhstan. So while many discussions of the supposed Uranium One scandal claim Russia obtained 20 percent of the American uranium supply, in reality, it?s closer to zero.

Even if Russians ultimately decided to operate the mines, they are not able to export the uranium. It could only be sold to U.S. nuclear power plants.

The sale ?had as much of an impact on national security as it would have if they set the money on fire,? said Jeffrey Lewis, a nuclear non-proliferation expert at the Middlebury Institute.

Overall, the United States produces about 2 million pounds of uranium each year and imports 57 million pounds from other countries.

Interest was renewed in the supposed scandal thanks to a single, anonymously sourced article.

The Uranium One ?scandal? was first introduced to the public in April 2016. There is a chapter devoted to it in the book Clinton Cash by Peter Schweitzer; this book was based on research by the Government Accountability Institute, which is a project of Breitbart?s Steve Bannon.

Since then, public interest in the scandal had largely waned. Then, on October 17, in an article bylined by John Solomon and Alison Spann, The Hill revived the controversy by reporting that ?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.?

This is a carefully worded paragraph that seems to be very significant, but that has little real meaning.

Spann and Solomon ? the latter of whom previously worked for right-wing outlets like the Washington Times and Sinclair Broadcasting ? provide no other backing for the core claim that Russian money was intended ?to benefit former President Bill Clinton?s charitable foundation.? Only near the end of the article do they reveal that the ?millions of dollars,? according to their own reporting, was not donated to the Clinton Foundation but went ?to an American entity that had provided assistance to Bill Clinton?s foundation.? Nor do they ever claim there was a Russian effort to influence the CFIUS.

Moreover, there is no suggestion that Hillary Clinton knew about the FBI?s investigation at the time CFIUS considered the Uranium One sale.

The article largely rehashes an unrelated case in which Russian officials gave no-bid contracts to an American trucking company transporting uranium in exchange for kickbacks. That case was publicly resolved through a plea agreement in 2015.

Nevertheless, The Hill article was sufficient to set off a frenzy of renewed coverage on Uranium One.

The Steele Dossier

Christopher Steele, a former British intelligence agent, was contracted by an American research firm, Fusion GPS, to investigation Donald Trump?s connections to Russia. Steele eventually produced a dossier alleging that the Russians possessed compromising material on Trump and that various members Trump?s campaign colluded with Russians during the election. Some of the sources Steele consulted to construct the resume were Russian, including a former Russian intelligence officer.

Last week, it was revealed that the Clinton campaign and the DNC helped finance the research, which was actually initiated by a conservative publication, The Free Beacon. (Mother Jones reported that ?a client allied with Democrats? helped finance the research last October, so the report was not a huge surprise.)

Trump and others claim that the Clinton campaign paid Fusion GPS $12 million for work on the dossier. This is false. That sum represents the total amount the campaign paid to its law firm, Perkins Coie, which subcontracted the Fusion GPS work.

Trump and other Republicans allege this is proof that it was Hillary Clinton, not Trump, that colluded with Russia. According to Republicans, this proves that the investigation into potential Trump campaign collusion with Russia is simply a political witch hunt.

Here?s the truth: Russia was actively trying to undermine the Clinton campaign who didn?t and couldn?t have colluded with Russia. And the Steele dossier was not produced with the cooperation of the Russian government.

The Russians were trying to help Trump, not Clinton.

The Clinton campaign could not have colluded with Russia because they were working toward opposite goals. The Russian government was trying to undermine Clinton?s campaign and help Donald Trump. This was the assessment of the United States intelligence community, which released a report in January that concluded:

We assess Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the US presidential election. Russia?s goals were to undermine public faith in the US democratic process, denigrate Secretary Clinton, and harm her electability and potential presidency. We further assess Putin and the Russian Government developed a clear preference for President-elect Trump.

The Russian government, according to the U.S. intelligence committee, hacked DNC and Clinton campaign email and then coordinated with Wikileaks to publish the emails to maximize damage to the Clinton campaign.

Investigating collusion is not collusion.

As part of his research, Steele talked to people in Russia, including a former Russian intelligence officer, about the connections between Trump and Russia. This does not constitute collusion with the Russian government. There is no evidence the Russian government was involved in creating the dossier or sought to assist in its creation.

Calls for Mueller to resign

Various right-wing voices have called for Mueller?s resignation for a variety of reasons, inventing conflicts of interest that they claim compel him to step down. None of them make much sense.

Here?s the truth: The FBI itself is not under investigation, and the bureau?s investigation into the Trump campaign is not dependent on the Steele dossier.

Mueller?s investigation is not based on the dossier.

Some Republicans are calling for Mueller?s investigation to be shut down because it is based on the Steele dossier. But the investigation into whether the Trump campaign colluded with Russia did not start with Mueller ? it started with the FBI in July 2016. The FBI did not launch its investigation based on the dossier. Steele began to assemble the dossier around the same time that the investigation began.

After Trump fired FBI Director James Comey in an effort to end the Russia investigation, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein appointed Mueller to take over the investigation.

Mueller is reportedly examining the document as part of his investigation. Several key claims in the dossier have already been independently confirmed.

Mueller?s investigation does not include the FBI.

The Wall Street Journal editorial page argues that because the FBI allegedly considered continuing to pay for Steele to investigate Trump, the FBI must be part of Mueller?s investigation. Because Robert Mueller has previously worked with James Comey and run the FBI, the Wall Street Journal argues he ?lacks the critical distance? to investigate the FBI and must step down.

It?s unclear why it would have been inappropriate for the FBI to work with Steele, who is an experienced and respected intelligence professional. One can argue that the FBI shouldn?t have considered contracting with Steele, but there was nothing illegal about it.

Mueller, however, is investigating whether the Trump campaign colluded with Russia and any related crimes. There is no reason for Mueller to investigate the FBI or James Comey.

Having invented an imperative to investigate the FBI, the Wall Street Journal then invents a conflict which it claims requires him to resign.

Others, including Fox News, are suggesting that Mueller should resign because he was in charge of the FBI when they investigated the kickback scheme between Russian officials and the trucking company that was linked to Uranium One by the recent report in The Hill. Why, exactly, this would require Mueller?s resignation as special counsel is unclear and unexplained.

And finally, another link about the debunked uranium one scandal and more about Mueller:

[url="https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/hillary-clinton-robert-mueller-uranium/]Did Hillary Clinton Tell FBI?s Mueller to Deliver Uranium to Russians in 2009 ?Secret Tarmac Meeting??[/url]

This is an excerpt of the whole piece.

Despite partisan attempts to make it appear conspiratorial, the transfer of the sample of confiscated uranium was simply an instance of cooperative law enforcement between three countries: the U.S., Georgia, and Russia. The Russia government requested a sample of the uranium for forensic testing, the Georgian government signed off on it, and the U.S. government carried out the delivery.

The total amount of HEU confiscated in the sting was 3.5 ounces (about 100 grams). The amount Mueller delivered to the Russians was ten grams (the weight of four U.S. pennies).

tl;dr the Uranium one story is an old, thoroughly debunked right-wing conspiracy theory.
 
Right wing hypocrisy at it's finest. Do you know how many years of investigations the left has had to endure? Conservatives don't seem to understand what an investigation actually is "there still is no evidence after all this time witch hunt! fake news!" uhhhh yeah no. The teams job is to gather evidence, you will find out at the end which could take years.

I'd like to see <SNIP> Trump go into a televised court room and testify for 12 hours like Hillary had to. I hated Hillary and still do but she at least had some balls. Trump is a puppet of Russia there is no debate about this looking at his actions. The reasons why need to be found out. It could be he is innocent, he <SNIP> [loves Putin] because he is brainwashed by right wing media.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I don't really have the time or the inclination to go through that disinformation piece and pick it all apart so I'm just going to say it's baloney. There's a lot of BS there, claiming this person had no control or it was decided by a committee of this size. It's ridiculous and it doesn't change the facts. The hypocrisy is also astounding - if Trump did the same thing you would calling for his head and not pasting tedious, unnecessary propaganda trying to absolve him. I've done extensive research into this so I know exactly what went down, and there is no good explanation for handing over access to a large chunk of US resources to a foreign power, let alone an enemy, let alone FUCKING URANIUM. Anyone can see that it would endanger national security. And we do know that yellow cake uranium was exported to Canada which then went on to Europe. (Where did it go from there? Iran? NK?) This is a legitimately massive scandal that is not going away.

fake news piece said:
The donations from those with ties to Uranium One weren?t publicly disclosed by the Clinton Foundation, even though Hillary Clinton had an agreement with the White House that the foundation would disclose all contributors. Days after the Times story, the foundation acknowledged that it ?made mistakes,? saying it had disclosed donations from a Canadian charity, for instance, but not the donors to that charity who were associated with the uranium company.
Oh ok, so the explanation is "whoops sorry" and then that's that? Give me a break. They've failed to explain exactly why Russians linked to the deal donated approx. $150 million to the Clinton Foundation. So the explanation is that it was one of those amazing coincidences and that the Russians were just giving that much charity, and it happened to be through the Clinton Foundation? The suggestion is laughable - this is what pay for play/bribery looks like. Also it's a bit lazy to just spam articles to argue a point. If you really claim to understand what's going you should be able to explain it yourself more succinctly.
 
So here's some important information relating to the investigation by ex-USSS Dan Bongino (paraphrasing):

The FBI is refusing to provide the unredacted document that started this whole investigation into the Trump team.

Kim Strassel (WSJ) states that they're risking a contempt citation by refusing to provide this information about why they started it.
The reason why - is because the information was provided by foreign intel. Which is more frightening than it seems.

Not sure if you're aware but there are a few friendly governments who spy on each other, since states are not allowed to spy on their own citizens so they get their allies to do it and share intelligence (Five Eyes). Now that may be some of the information contained in this genesis document, which is why the FBI is so reluctant to un-redact this document as to how they started this investigation into Trump.

This investigation started based on some reporting from liberal outlets (including CNN), based on foreign governments who were cooperating with the US, notably the UK. Their intelligence services spying on the Trump team because the NSA, CIA and FBI could not legally do it. Now it makes sense why they're slow-walking this.

The UK's involvement in this spying on Trump is catastrophic, because it's going to be embarrassing, it's going to be humiliating, it's going to overturn a lot of members of free countries, democracies (US, UK, Australia), their perception on what the intelligence communities were designed to do, it's going to shake the faith in the intelligence community. And the bombshell is this - they wanted to spy on the Trump team, and they used a foreign government to do it, and that foreign government played politics with the United States to get their preferred candidate in there.

Putting this out there opens you up to significant criticism and conspiracy theory nonsense, but that's OK because I can back up with reporting based on left-wing assets like CNN, who have already reported that the British intelligence entities were spying on Trump. None of that is new.

I had assumed that this was a small component of it. I always knew there was a political component to the Obama/Clinton/DNC machine spying on Trump (obviously, they didn't want Trump in). But maybe the scandal is the level of British involvement. Maybe this whole thing started with a cooperative kind of wink and a nod with the British that they were going to do it. The genesis of the investigation WAS Obama officials and Clinton officials in fact pushing the British to do this for them. That's a huge revelation. Previously we were unaware of the level of British involvement, but were they integral players?
Imagine a conspiracy to rob a bank, and it turns out the getaway driver may have actually been the the mastermind of the plan the entire time.

Huge scandal: collaborating with a foreign government to take down Donald Trump. I'm convinced that's why they're slow-walking this case. Hat tip to Kim Strassel at the WSJ for exposing that that is probably why they will not release this genesis document. Because in this document there is information given to us by the British that was probably integral - one of the main reasons they spied on the Trump team.

What Is the FBI Hiding? (The bureau still won?t comply with an eight-month-old subpoena from Congress) by Kimberley A. Strassel

https://www.wsj.com/articles/what-is-the-fbi-hiding-1522970740

Let's lay it out:

New texts emerged from our lovebirds, FBI's Peter Strzok and Lisa Page. Strzok who is an upper level manager involved in the Hillary Clinton email case and in the early stages of this counterintelligence investigation on Trump. Strzok and Page were having an affair, they were texting each other, these things have been coming out in drips and drabs, which has been uncovered as the result of Michael Horowitz's internal affairs IG investigation into the FBI's behavior during these cases.

So one of the texts that came out last night is DAMNING. Apparently on August 2nd, 2016, Strzok travels somewhere to meet with someone (name was redacted). He travels to.... London. We don't know where (also redacted). But in the texts he says the place he met with him was "the longest continually-staffed establishment in London" referring to the embassy. Which is.... the Australia House. Remember months before this, Alexander Downer who met with Papadopolous in early May is the Australian ambassador to the United Kingdom. It's hard to confirm who Strzok met with but it appears to be Downer, that should come out in the coming days.

Was this a legitimate conspiracy the entire time between friendly countries to the United States - Australians, the United Kingdom to take down Donald Trump? This is really spooky stuff. Let's put together some more pieces:

Alexander Downer who met with Padadopolous in that London bar (where it was alleged Papa told him about dirt on the Russians that sparked the FBI's interest), is a member of the Haglett(sp?) group, which is already known to be a home for former British MI6 agents. Downer left before all this, but it was reported that he was at functions with them and he still maintained those professional contacts. Keep in mind, all these points are contacts with the British government and the Australians involving people involved in the Trump investigation. This is terrifying stuff. We obviously already know Christopher Steele who produced the dossier on Trump was a former MI6 agent. We know that Robert Hannigan who was the head of the GCHQ (British NSA) met with John Brennan of the CIA in a director/director meeting and had some serious information. Keep in mind - it was already reported that the British were spying on Trump. Hannigan suspiciously steps down right after the election when they find out Trump wins. The head of the British NSA? We now know that Christopher Steele in his effort to get the dossier into the American justice system, and to try to use some Republicans to do it, who does he use to get the information to Senator John McCain? A former British ambassador to Moscow, Sir Andrew Wood. We know that Rob Goldstone, the publicist who contacts Don Trump Jr and says he has some information about Hillary and emails from a Russian, is a British publicist. We know that Joseph Mifsud, the guy who tells Papadopolous that the Russians have dirt on Hillary, and Papadopolous tells Downer who tells American intelligence and starts this investigation (allegedly). We know that Mifsud has known to have rubbed elbows with prominent UK intelligence officials. Was Papadopolous baited or planted?

This is a big deal. Some think that the scandal here is Trump being spied on, however the real scandal the entire time may be foreign intelligence working with the United States government to take down a political figure. Those may seem like the same story but they're not. It's the same person involved, but the level of scandal, now it makes sense. Spying on Trump would have been a big deal, especially without the requisite probable cause and without a predicate crime. But the fact the Unites States government may have intentionally, cooperated, without any evidence, with a foreign government, to spy on a major American political figure in the heart of an election - can you imagine a bigger scandal? This is really troubling stuff.

Was this a setup the entire time? I think the answer is obvious. But the real scandal now, is not what did Obama know and when did he know it (I think it's clear as day Obama knew Trump was being spied on), the question now is what did the British know, and when did they know it, and WHO? This is going to be the question right now in this foundational document, this EC, genesis document about how this whole thing started.

To summarize: who called the FBI?
If the cops show up to your house and they say "hey we're getting reports that you were involved in a kidnapping" and you're like "WTF you talking about I've been chilling here", wouldn't you want to know - well, who said that??
The question now, and why they're hiding this EC document (and I believe Strassel's onto something). I believe it's going to be foreign governments and foreign intel people who were prodded, by the Clinton campaign and the Obama team, to basically launder and clean their involvement in the genesis of this investigation from the start, and I think they did it through the UK intelligence services and the Australians.
This is deeply disturbing stuff.
 
Right wing hypocrisy at it's finest. Do you know how many years of investigations the left has had to endure? Conservatives don't seem to understand what an investigation actually is "there still is no evidence after all this time witch hunt! fake news!" uhhhh yeah no. The teams job is to gather evidence, you will find out at the end which could take years.

Big difference, those all began with crimes. Pick a scandal from the Left and I will tell you the crime that spearheaded the investigation.
Good luck doing that with Trump without sounding like a conspiracy theorist or a politician trying to avoid answering a question directly, instead bringing up vague connections that prove nothing of the original mandate of the investigation.
 
I don't really have the time or the inclination to go through that disinformation piece and pick it all apart so I'm just going to say it's baloney. There's a lot of BS there.

Okay.

I've done extensive research into this so I know exactly what went down

You had me at "baloney"... :D

it's a bit lazy to just spam articles to argue a point. If you really claim to understand what's going you should be able to explain it yourself more succinctly.

Well, I read 12 articles and chose these for clarity, relevance and thoroughness. Sometimes those things matter more than brevity.

To put it succinctly, this conspiracy theory is utterly false.

And I wouldn't call someone who actually posts relevant information "lazy" when you can't be bothered to share the "extensive research" that you allege you were motivated enough to do, but apparently not to share.

The espoused conspiracy theories tend to be quite repetitive.

The espoused conspiracy theories tend to be quite repetitive. :)
 
Well actually it was a conspiracy, but a real one, because Obama/Clinton allowed Vladimir Putin to control 20% of US uranium capacity and then to export some by co-opting a transport company.

Those are facts. You can argue why it happened and why it's not a big deal, but that's just hypocritical and amusing. There is literally no way to justify this, especially while currently claiming that Russians are our #1 enemy that helped elect Trump.

This scandal single handedly destroys Trump/Russia collusion narrative and it puts a lot of people in the crosshairs, namely Mueller, the Clintons and Obama.
 
Trump can declassify any intelligence he wants.

For example, he blurted out highly classified information from the Israelis to the Russians he hosted just after firing FBI Director James Comey.
Trump revealed highly classified information to Russian foreign minister and ambassador

If Trump Tower Was Wiretapped, Trump Can Declassify That Right Now

If in fact Trump Tower was wiretapped during the 2016 presidential campaign, as President Trump claimed in several tweets Saturday morning, he can do much more than say so on twitter: Presidents have the power to declassify anything at any time, so Trump could immediately make public any government records of such surveillance.

What Trump is saying seems to be a garbled version of previous reporting by the BBC, among other news outlets.

Text of two Trump tweets:

Terrible! Just found out that Obama had my "wires tapped" in Trump Tower just before the victory. Nothing found. This is McCarthyism!

Is it legal for a sitting President to be "wire tapping" a race for president prior to an election? Turned down by court earlier. A NEW LOW!
1:49 AM ? Mar 4, 2017

According to a report in the BBC, citing unnamed sources, a joint government task force was formed in spring of 2016 to look into an intelligence report from a foreign government that Russian money was somehow coming into the U.S. presidential race. In June the Department of Justice, part of the task force, asked the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act court for a warrant to intercept electronic communications by two Russian banks.

However, the BBC?s report says, the FISA court turned the application down.. The Justice Department then asked again in July with a more narrowly drawn request, which was again turned down. Justice then made a third request for a warrant on October 15, which was granted.

None of this involves wiretapping Trump Tower. However, it is possible that Trump picked that up from a Breitbart article that in turn relied on a Heat Street piece that claimed the warrant was issued because of evidence of links between a ?private server in Donald Trump?s Trump Tower? and a Russian bank. In fact, the server in question, set up by a marketing company hired by Trump, was physically located in Philadelphia.

Barack Obama?s spokesman responded to Trump?s tweets by saying that ?neither President Obama nor any White House official ever ordered surveillance on any U.S. citizen.? Notably, this statement does not deny that someone in the Obama administration ordered surveillance of Trump Tower, simply that the White House did not ? which isn?t meaningful, since in a properly functioning executive branch the Justice Department would make that decision on its own without White House interference.

So what does all this mean?

The most likely explanation is that there was never any wiretapping of Trump Tower ? or as Trump put it in another tweet, ?my phones? ? but the FISA court did allow surveillance of the Philadelphia server and the Justice Department ultimately decided there was nothing to it.

Or perhaps the Justice Department decided there was something to it and is still investigating it.

Or perhaps there were FISA court warrants but for surveillance of people around Trump that had nothing to do with the Philadelphia server and the Russian bank.

Or perhaps Trump never read the Breitbart article but instead learned there was significant surveillance of Trump Tower in the way you?d expect a president would, from the massive intelligence apparatus he commands.

Or perhaps Trump has simply gotten all of this wrong.

Whatever the case, Trump has the power to clarify it and everything else about the Russia story right now by declassifying whatever surveillance records exist of contacts between people in his orbit and Russia. If he and his associates did nothing wrong, he has every incentive to do so as soon as possible.

The White House press office did not immediately respond to requests to comment on whether Trump will use his declassification power regarding his tweeted claims. It?s previously ignored repeated questions about whether he will use it regarding the general issue of contacts between Russia and his campaign...

Article goes on to give some historical context for spying on presidential candidates. Hint: Nixon

I also find it fascinating that people think they could read the intel used to grant a FISA warrant and make a decision about whether or not it should have been issued. Most people don't know what a FISA warrant is, much less the standard that must be met.

Trey Gowdy, who headed the BENGHAZI INVESTIGATION and who Devon Nunes tasked with reading the big, hard legal words in the legal documents related to the FISA application seems to think it's irrelevant to the existence of the Mueller investigation.

Gowdy: Memo has no impact on Russia probe

Rep. Trey Gowdy, who was involved in the drafting of the controversial FISA memo, told CBS? ?Face the Nation? it has no effect on the Russia investigation:

There is a Russia investigation without a dossier? the dossier has nothing to do with the meeting at Trump Tower. The dossier has nothing to do with an email sent by Cambridge Analytica. The dossier really has nothing to do with George Papadopoulos' meeting in Great Britain. It also doesn't have anything to do with obstruction of justice.

Why it matters: President Trump claims the memo "totally vindicates" him and has suggested it should bring an end to the Russia "witch hunt." Gowdy disagrees.

Gowdy did defend the decision to release the memo, arguing the use of the Steele dossier to obtain a FISA warrant against Carter Page was ?unprecedented? and inappropriate...

So even without the dossier, Republican House Intelligence Committee Member Gowdy, who actually read the intel, stated that the Mueller investigation is completely legitimate.

So why exactly is the FISA warrant relevant to Mueller's investigation? It's not.

And just for kicks, a replay:
It Ain?t Easy Getting a FISA Warrant: I Was an FBI Agent and Should Know
 
Top