Uranium One: Explained by Rep Louie Gohmert's chart

[Edge-]

Honestly who cares when it was, people don't randomly give huge sums of money to political organizations without expecting some kind of payback.

Except it's a charity, not a political organization.

Or should we be scrutinizing every "donation" to the Trump Foundation in light of his current office, too?

[Shalcker]

Show me where is says what you claim, specifically that "1-6 million $ from Tefler. Which supposedly happened during review process."

Are you unable to search? I already quoted this part upthread.

...but okay, it's not hard to copy-paste it.

One caveat: The New York Times found that Ian Telfer donated between $1.3 million and $5.6 million to the Clinton Foundation during and after the review process for the Russian deal.

So there’s evidence showing that one man involved with Uranium One (Telfer) donated millions to the Clinton Foundation at the same time as the deal. That certainly doesn’t look good for Hillary Clinton

[Casterbridge]

Honestly who cares when it was, people don't randomly give huge sums of money to political organizations without expecting some kind of payback.

What is it with the time travelling conspiracies of late?

[cubby]

Are you unable to search? I already quoted this part upthread.

...but okay, it's not hard to copy-paste it.

One caveat: The New York Times found that Ian Telfer donated between $1.3 million and $5.6 million to the Clinton Foundation during and after the review process for the Russian deal.

So there’s evidence showing that one man involved with Uranium One (Telfer) donated millions to the Clinton Foundation at the same time as the deal. That certainly doesn’t look good for Hillary Clinton

So he's Russian, then? Exactly.

Thanks for playing.

[Edge-]

What is it with the time travelling conspiracies of late?

Hillary is a time traveling wizard, you didn't know this? She's not very good at what she does, since she does things like arrange secret meetings between the Trump campaign and Russian officials only to not say anything about it during the campaign and wait until nearly a full year later for media to find out about it.

She's a crafty one, her metagaming is next-level.

[Shalcker]

So he's Russian, then? Exactly.

Thanks for playing.

Claim was always that Russians routed money through intermediary; and Tefler obviously had to be in contact with Russians to do the deal as well as had personal stake in deal succeeding (and possible connection to Guirista).

So if Russians paid Clinton they did it through him.

Is Canadian rather then Russian corruption considered okay and not worthy of any mentions? "Just friends giving money to friends"?

[cubby]

Claim was always that Russians routed money through intermediary; and Tefler obviously had to be in contact with Russians to do the deal as well as had personal stake in deal succeeding.

So if Russians paid Clinton they did it through him.

Is Canadian rather then Russian corruption considered okay and not worthy of any mentions? "Just friends giving money to friends"?

Your insane jumps of logic are hysterical. Along with your rhetorical questions that you seem intent on answering regardless of who they are not directed at. My favorite part is your statement that both shows how insanely bias you are along with demonstrating that the whole thing didn't happen in the first place.

Give us a shout if you're confused as to which of your statements torpedo'd you. We're always here to help our Russian friends!

[Breccia]

I'm not talking about 120 million $ from Guirista in 2007.

First of all, liar.



I brought up the $120 million, you jumped in all "check your sources lolz" at that time. You were, in fact, talking about the $120 million.

Second of all, your defense to "Clinton risked her upcoming Presidential bid by taking $120 million from Russians into a charity overseen by the IRS with openly published taxes and money she couldn't spend, then used that as motivation in a deal she couldn't have pushed through if she tried, couldn't have blocked if she tried, and let Russia mine 20% of the US's paltry sum of uranium for weapons they don't even make any more, even if they could export the uranium they mined, and they did it all through Canadians"...

...is "nuh uh, she did it for much much less money".

This is conspiracy level bullshit, especially from someone defending Trump, in whose campaign multiple people, including his son, have admitted trying to directly work with the Russian government and taking Russian money.

This isn't just Whataboutism. This is insanity. And everyone knows it, including you.

[Shalcker]

First of all, liar.
I brought up the $120 million, you jumped in all "check your sources lolz" at that time. You were, in fact, talking about the $120 million.

You linked article which had them all; not just 120 million one.

And i pointed out that their only website is Clinton Foundation one. As well as Guirista organization having "Clinton" right there in the name. So calling them independent entity, as you seemed to imply, is more like trying to mislead everyone - "It's just one Canadian philantropist"; when your article clearly states that it wasn't just him.

So, check your sources is highly appropriate.

Second of all, your defense to "Clinton risked her upcoming Presidential bid by taking $120 million from Russians into a charity overseen by the IRS with openly published taxes and money she couldn't spend, then used that as motivation in a deal she couldn't have pushed through if she tried, couldn't have blocked if she tried, and let Russia mine 20% of the US's paltry sum of uranium for weapons they don't even make any more, even if they could export the uranium they mined, and they did it all through Canadians"...

It's your defence. You're defending her here by "she wouldn't risk it"??? Seriously? Where is the risk for her here?!

...your understanding of how corruption works seems to be on comic-book level - villains have to be paid directly and immediately spend those money on themselves only... that's not how it works at all. It's Clinton we're talking about, she has aspirations beyond her own profits.

She could have applied pressure if deal would stall at some level - or merely suggested she could while having no intention of doing so. But as we know deal came through without it. So, risk-free money!

I make no claims about her motivation. Motivation of Tefler is pretty obvious though - he wants deal to succeed. It's his company being sold. And he contributes money to Clinton-linked organization to that end. Maybe his own, maybe Russian - we don't know.

[Milchshake]

It's just so desperately pathetic at this point. I mean, even their own "news" channel has debunked this conspiracy theory.

That's basically the electoral strategy of electing wingnuts. It totally demoralizes all other voters outside of his own base.

With fewer voters participating, it's easier for him to win reelection. Thus becoming a vicious cycle.

It's not like Steve Bannon is going to find more conservatives that are even more committed to low taxes and destroying the government than those currently in congress. He's pushing wingnuts to salt the earth and make the rule of unpopular a permanent thing.

[Thekri]

I am not convinced Clinton is clean on this, but as of right now I see no evidence to actually accuse her of anything. The state department was one of seven departments to sign off on this, it is a standard review process for major overseas corporate transfers. There is no evidence that I have seen that ties this to Clinton herself, there is a big difference between State Department and the Secretary of State, she isn't personally involved in everything that passes through.

As for Tefler, just google him and you will see why the idea that is a bribe is ridiculous. Here is his Wikipedia. Notice there are two major sections, one is a list of massive mining companies, and one is for charitable donations. Both fit into this narrative without being suspicious at all, Uranium 1 was one asset from one of his many major mining holdings, he doesn't seem to be particularly involved in the deal, which also wasn't particularly lucrative. He also have a track record of multi-million dollar donations to major charities, which the Clinton foundation unquestionably is. So while I concede it is possible something else was going on, there is no reason to believe it is not entirely legitimate. Even Jeff Sessions says he doesn't have enough evidence to do anything significant about it, and he has a long track record of being pretty extreme in his attacks on liberal interests, so you can't really argue he is in on it.

Lastly, if you really want to understand this topic, it is worth doing some research on Committee on the Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS), which is the actually regulatory body at the root of this whole "Scandal". It is chaired by the Treasury Department, not the State Department, it has a total of about 3000 decisions dating back to 1988, and it is a joint committee, not an agency. It reviews major foreign investments and purchases, and if every agency signs off on it then they forward to the President for approval. If it is suspicious, they send it to an investigative team to do some further research. Final decision making authority always rests with the president. In this particular case it was unanimous among all agencies in the committee. There is no evidence the State department was influential in any part of the process, it was not investigated, everything seemed in order. Also of note, Uranium One is an extraction company, all it does it take uranium out of the ground. It has no license to transport or export uranium, so it had absolutely no effect on US control of Uranium. This was the stated reason for approving the deal without further review, essentially it was a non-issue from the start.

[Jeezy911]

Except it's a charity, not a political organization.

Or should we be scrutinizing every "donation" to the Trump Foundation in light of his current office, too?

Do you honestly believe that the Clinton Foundation is a legit charity?

[DarkTZeratul]

Do you honestly believe that the Clinton Foundation is a legit charity?

Do you have any evidence that it isn't?

[cubby]

That's basically the electoral strategy of electing wingnuts. It totally demoralizes all other voters outside of his own base.

With fewer voters participating, it's easier for him to win reelection. Thus becoming a vicious cycle.

It's not like Steve Bannon is going to find more conservatives that are even more committed to low taxes and destroying the government than those currently in congress. He's pushing wingnuts to salt the earth and make the rule of unpopular a permanent thing.

That is a frighteningly pessimistic and accurate portrayal of the future of voting in America.

#handmaidstale

- - - Updated - - -

Do you honestly believe that the Clinton Foundation is a legit charity?

Why do you think it isn't? Because it does good work? Because it has accurate taxes for every year?

Could it possibly be because you're a drooling Hilllary hater who has eschewed all facts, instead relying directly upon your feels for opinions?

[Kujako]

Do you have any evidence that it isn't?

It has "Clinton" in it, which is all the proof he needs.

[Felya]

Do you honestly believe that the Clinton Foundation is a legit charity?

Not just legit, but public. Clinton’s private charity is the Clinton Family Foundation.

[BrerBear]

Do you honestly believe that the Clinton Foundation is a legit charity?

It's a public foundation with over 2000 employees with demonstrated projects in AIDS treatment, malaria prevention, disaster relief, and human rights.
It has top ratings from charity watchdog groups.

So, yes.

[Jeezy911]

It's a public foundation with over 2000 employees with demonstrated projects in AIDS treatment, malaria prevention, disaster relief, and human rights.
It has top ratings from charity watchdog groups.

So, yes.

I'm sure the Haitians would disagree.

[Felya]

I'm sure the Haitians would disagree.

Just asked the Haitians... they were like... what you talking about Willis?... I think their pop culture is very dated...

[Edge-]

I'm sure the Haitians would disagree.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.9cf53c7f3cfb

Mostly overblown. They did a lot of good work there, but some of their work didn't go so well.

Which is totally the same as this ludicrous conspiracy theory. Totally.