Uranium One: Explained by Rep Louie Gohmert's chart

[I Push Buttons]

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.

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.

What pressure would Clinton apply? The deal was passed unanimously by a panel of cabinet/energy officials... And the only reason the deal was even scrutinized by this panel at all is because it was a strategic resource and the decision was required by law... It was essentially a rubber stamp. If this were a mine of any other resource the government wouldn't have even been involved. Especially since this was before Crimea in 2014 when the sanctions began.

[Orbitus]

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

Yes, next question?

[Dontrike]

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

Considering it's a public charity I'd have to say yes.

Doesn't matter what anyone says though you think pedophilia is a "one day event".

[Cthulhu 2020]

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"?

Man it certainly would be nice to see some kind of proof or any indication that the Russians were communicating with him in this way, or that they gave him money. Since you know, money routing tends to be pretty easy to track by intelligence officials.

[Shalcker]

Man it certainly would be nice to see some kind of proof or any indication that the Russians were communicating with him in this way, or that they gave him money. Since you know, money routing tends to be pretty easy to track by intelligence officials.

He was selling stake in his company to Russians. How would you do that without ever contacting Russians and talking to them about it?

Russian classical corruption scheme is "kickback". Where stakeholder is being paid certain percentage of total deal for deal coming through.

As long as Tefler was paid any money before or after deal by Russians (separate from money being paid for stock), it could be that. He could be using his own money on promise of higher later payoff.

[-Nurot]

I'm sure the Haitians would disagree.

https://www.charitywatch.org/ratings...foundation/478

RATING: A

Of course Trump's was a private foundation, so it never got a rating. Good thing right?

[Felya]

https://www.charitywatch.org/ratings...foundation/478

Of course Trump's was a private foundation, so it never got a rating. Good thing right?

Hillary actually does have her own private charity. It’s the Clinton Family Foundation. Something these conspiracy theories never talk about... it’s as if in their research into Clinton, they missed the second paragraph of Wikipedia entry for Clinton Foundation.

[-Nurot]

Hillary actually does have her own private charity. It’s the Clinton Family Foundation. Something these conspiracy theories never talk about... it’s as if in their research into Clinton, they missed the second paragraph of Wikipedia entry for Clinton Foundation.

True enough, and it smells like roses compared to Trump's private foundation.

https://www.insidephilanthropy.com/h...larys-per.html

For anyone who doesn't remember, Trump shut his down when it was told to cease fundraising and it is under investigation for financially benefiting Trump personally.

[Cthulhu 2020]

He was selling stake in his company to Russians. How would you do that without ever contacting Russians and talking to them about it?

Russian classical corruption scheme is "kickback". Where stakeholder is being paid certain percentage of total deal for deal coming through.

As long as Tefler was paid any money before or after deal by Russians (separate from money being paid for stock), it could be that. He could be using his own money on promise of higher later payoff.

I like how you're acknowledging some kind of Russian transfer of money with no proof other than that he had some communications (with no proof of communication for kickbacks) but when it comes to Trump and their CONFIRMED communication with Russians and several people related to the campaign having indictments of Russian money laundering, you vehemently deny it.

It's pretty cute that you're making implications out of something you don't know for certain, as if it were certain, but still deny known facts.

[Shalcker]

I like how you're acknowledging some kind of Russian transfer of money with no proof other than that he had some communications (with no proof of communication for kickbacks)

We have FBI investigation to that end (that supposedly had proof that Russians transferred money from Russia for Clinton).

Proof we have never seen.

If they'll ever restart it we might know more.

but when it comes to Trump and their CONFIRMED communication with Russians and several people related to the campaign having indictments of Russian money laundering, you vehemently deny it.

Deny collusion and "Kremlin ties" of Russians contacting them; noone denies contact with Russians in general.

There are still no proof of collusion, just like there are no proof of Russians paying Clinton; only suspicions.

[Dontrike]

Deny collusion and "Kremlin ties" of Russians contacting them; noone denies contact with Russians in general.

There are still no proof of collusion, just like there are no proof of Russians paying Clinton; only suspicions.

At what point is this considered trolling? This person(?) has spouted the same thing when in fact there has been proof.

[Kiri]

There are still no proof of collusion, just like there are no proof of Russians paying Clinton; only suspicions.

Correct, neither has any published proof or anything. People are not denying that. But people are calling you out for calling Hillary corrupt on suspicion alone, while you do not do the same for Trump. Innocent until proven guilty goes both ways.

[Shalcker]

Correct, neither has any published proof or anything. People are not denying that.

You say that while post directly above yours denies that...

But people are calling you out for calling Hillary corrupt on suspicion alone, while you do not do the same for Trump. Innocent until proven guilty goes both ways.

What? Of course Trump is corrupt. Right from his initial selection for government positions.

That doesn't necessarily mean he colluded with Russians, however.

[Kiri]

You say that while post directly above yours denies that...

What? Of course Trump is corrupt. Right from his initial selection for government positions.

That doesn't necessarily mean he colluded with Russians, however.

Granted, I had not read that one haha. I redact that 'people' statement then to 'some people' or whatever. There has not yet been proof published, people just assume that Mueller has something. A lot of people tend to conflate things like that, sadly.

I meant the collusion thing, since that was spoken of. I was just saying that you tend to call Hillary corrupt with more certainty than you call Trump colluding. And don't give me exact words here, implications are implications. Pretty much if you used the same standards for evidence in both cases, people would not react as negatively to you as they tend to do.

[Breccia]

Correct, neither has any published proof or anything. People are not denying that. But people are calling you out for calling Hillary corrupt on suspicion alone, while you do not do the same for Trump. Innocent until proven guilty goes both ways.

And don't forget "I haven't seen the classified evidence in the court-gag-ordered investigation, therefore, the evidence doesn't exist" defense.

[paralleluniverse]

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

Yes.

It's an A-rated charity from which the Clintons get no money. A higher rating than the American Red Cross.

[Molis]

The only thing this chart was good for was the amazing memes it created

[Shalcker]

So, "the latest news".

Apparently Clintons weren't the only ones being bought.

“As part of the scheme, Mikerin, with the consent of higher level officials at TENEX and Rosatom (both Russian state-owned entities) would offer no-bid contracts to US businesses in exchange for kickbacks in the form of money payments made to some offshore banks accounts,” Agent David Gadren testified.

“Mikerin apparently then shared the proceeds with other co-conspirators associated with TENEX in Russia and elsewhere,” the agent added.

The investigation was ultimately supervised by then-U.S. Attorney Rod Rosenstein, an Obama appointee who now serves as President Trump’s deputy attorney general, and then-Assistant FBI Director Andrew McCabe, now the deputy FBI director under Trump, Justice Department documents show.

Both men now play a key role in the current investigation into possible, but still unproven, collusion between Russia and Donald Trump’s campaign during the 2016 election cycle. McCabe is under congressional and Justice Department inspector general investigation in connection with money his wife’s Virginia state Senate campaign accepted in 2015 from now-Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe at a time when McAuliffe was reportedly under investigation by the FBI. The probe is not focused on McAuliffe's conduct but rather on whether McCabe's attendance violated the Hatch Act or other FBI conflict rules.

The connections to the current Russia case are many. The Mikerin probe began in 2009 when Robert Mueller, now the special counsel in charge of the Trump case, was still FBI director. And it ended in late 2015 under the direction of then-FBI Director James Comey, whom Trump fired earlier this year.

Well, that sounds like pretty easy thing for Republicans to latch upon.

The only public statement occurred a year later when the Justice Department put out a little-noticed press release in August 2015, just days before Labor Day. The release noted that the various defendants had reached plea deals.

By that time, the criminal cases against Mikerin had been narrowed to a single charge of money laundering for a scheme that officials admitted stretched from 2004 to 2014. And though agents had evidence of criminal wrongdoing they collected since at least 2009, federal prosecutors only cited in the plea agreement a handful of transactions that occurred in 2011 and 2012, well after the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States’s approval.

The final court case also made no mention of any connection to the influence peddling conversations the FBI undercover informant witnessed about the Russian nuclear officials trying to ingratiate themselves with the Clintons even though agents had gathered documents showing the transmission of millions of dollars from Russia’s nuclear industry to an American entity that had provided assistance to Bill Clinton’s foundation, sources confirmed to The Hill.

And they manage to play it up as "Russian interference" too!

Former Rep. Mike Rogers (R-Mich.), who chaired the House Intelligence Committee during the time the FBI probe was being conducted, told The Hill that he had never been told anything about the Russian nuclear corruption case even though many fellow lawmakers had serious concerns about the Obama administration’s approval of the Uranium One deal.

“Not providing information on a corruption scheme before the Russian uranium deal was approved by U.S. regulators and engage appropriate congressional committees has served to undermine U.S. national security interests by the very people charged with protecting them,” he said. “The Russian efforts to manipulate our American political enterprise is breathtaking.”

That's the kind of interference i can certainly believe in. That is how "Russian interference" looks like.

[Noxx79]

So, "the latest news".

Apparently Clintons weren't the only ones being bought.



Well, that sounds like pretty easy thing for Republicans to latch upon.



And they manage to play it up as "Russian interference" too!


That's the kind of interference i can certainly believe in. That is how "Russian interference" looks like.

“Latest News?” Thats the same flawed article from more than a month ago.

[Allybeboba]

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

It is a top rated charity my friend.

- - - Updated - - -

Yes.

It's an A-rated charity from which the Clintons get no money. A higher rating than the American Red Cross.

The Red Cross is not a charity one should aspire to be compared to really.