If Hillary would have won, the Russians could have leaked information about the Uranium One that is now surfacing to truely topple the US Government. The entire team involved we're slated to be key members of the US government.
160 2017-10-23 by GoodWillPower
It's crazy to think of the bullet we dodged here. Imagine the fury from both sides if this would have transpired. The Russian wet dream of dismantling the US as a legitimate super power would have been a tangible reality. Imagine this:
-Hillary gets elected.
-Trump presses for special investigation.
-Right is seething as states refuse to investigate voter fraud.
-Russian collusion alligations stem as Russian sponsored Facebook ads that are Pro-Hillary surface.
-Donna Brazile handing questions to HC gets Bern supporters reeling.
-Huma and Weiner pedo charges shake HC admins foundations. (Imagine if KAC had a similar case go through with her guilty and doing jail time).
-Russian ties to Uranium One deal surface through Russians slowly slipping info needed to the right outlets (literally and figuratively right).
-Entire HRC admin is under investigation for Russia Uranium hand over.
-Trump dumps billions into pressing investigation and begins anti-HRC nasty woman schtick.
-Hillary becomes second Clinton to be impeached.
-Healthcare collapses in on itself and no one in Senate or Congress has the ability to right end it.
-US is at war with itself and Putin laughs as we slowly slip into chaos.
Holy shit. This could have been the Russian undoing that Hillary herself seems pretty close-mouthed about all of a sudden.
59 comments
1 mastigia 2017-10-23
Whoa, very interesting point.
Kinda related, I keep asking myself wtf Russia would need with our Uranium? Why did a Russian company even want to bother with all the trouble they would (did) have to go through to get their hands near our uranium? They have plenty of their own, unless I am horribly informed.
So, was this whole uranium deal a Russian/Putin entrapment scheme to destabilize our government? Similar to the trap put together to catch Trump going for that opposition research.
I believe the whole Russian collusion hoax is just that, a hoax. But don't think for a minute that I think Putin is our buddy. He just wasn't the bad guy in this very narrow subject.
Tl;dr: Does anyone know why the Russians wanted/needed our uranium?
1 GoodWillPower 2017-10-23
I believe it was a power play.
It would be like playing chess with your greatest opponent and getting them to snap their queen in half and give you the smaller half.
A terrible metaphor for sure, but in the end what did Putin have to loose? Nothing. The need for materials doesn't have to be there for it to benefit the Russians. Worst case scenario when they proposed purchasing the company is that Hillary or Mueller steps in and says no. They're still back where they were before.
1 Facts_About_Cats 2017-10-23
That's not at all how you play chess.
1 ZiggyAdventures 2017-10-23
The Uranium One deal gave Russia access to the Kazakh Uranium mines. The world's largest producing and most lucrative Uranium. The US uranium mines were secondary as seen by most of Uranium One's US mines being inactive.
1 errantdashingseagull 2017-10-23
Look at Kazakhstan on a map. "Our" uranium?
1 mastigia 2017-10-23
That is kinda what I am getting at. The perception is that this is US uranium. But I thought it was a mine in Kazakhastan. So, did the US company just own that mine? The controversy over HRC cupping balls on this deal, I don't get why it is framed as something that is in the US.
1 Rektar233 2017-10-23
Lol instead this is all happening to Trump but repubs will never indict one of their own.
1 GoodWillPower 2017-10-23
Trump didn't have anything to do with the Uranium One deal. Are you generalizing that he is under investigation for Russia ties? That really brushes over the premise of what I'm theorizing.
Also, indictment is a no partisan decision by both sides of the aisle. It doesn't matter whether the "repubs" have anything to do with it. If evidence turns up that Trump colluded with Russians he should be prosecuted.
If evidence shows that Hillary or her team, as public servants, knowingly endangered American lives for her own personal profit of 100's of millions of dollars, she should be prosecuted.
These are non partisan facts and simply how the judicial systemshould work.
1 errantdashingseagull 2017-10-23
How did Hillary, who did not initiate the Uranium one acquisition, and was one of 9 people to sign off on it, "endanger American lives"?
1 GoodWillPower 2017-10-23
I stand corrected. I shouldn't be pointing out just Hillary. I guess the fault lies on the entire administration.
This article outlines, very well, how HRC played a role and profited tremendously off the transaction.
At the end of the day, how can you brush off the matter of the fact that Nuclear assets were sold and HRC immediately became $100+ million richer? The fact that Russia doesn't need more seems like a fucked up way of disregarding the fact that, because of that transaction, they have.
1 Rektar233 2017-10-23
Because she didn't become richer. Money went to her foundation and expenditures if said foundation are public record. Thanks for playing
1 HarryPatchanus 2017-10-23
The uranium can't leave the US.
1 BuschMaster_J 2017-10-23
https://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-foundation-as-russians-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html "Mr. Christensen, 65, noted that despite assurances by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission that uranium could not leave the country without Uranium One or ARMZ obtaining an export license — which they do not have — yellowcake from his property was routinely packed into drums and trucked off to a processing plant in Canada. Asked about that, the commission confirmed that Uranium One has, in fact, shipped yellowcake to Canada even though it does not have an export license. Instead, the transport company doing the shipping, RSB Logistic Services, has the license. A commission spokesman said that “to the best of our knowledge” most of the uranium sent to Canada for processing was returned for use in the United States. A Uranium One spokeswoman, Donna Wichers, said 25 percent had gone to Western Europe and Japan. At the moment, with the uranium market in a downturn, nothing is being shipped from the Wyoming mines."
1 Rektar233 2017-10-23
Hillary had nothing to do with uranium one and the deal was given consent by nine different government agencies and the president.
Trump is in some deep controversy regarding his ties to Russia.no it doesn't brush over your theory .
How in the hell did uranium one endanger lives now?
Trump should be removed for his violations of the emoluments clause which he is currently violating, he should be impeached for conspiring with a foreign adversary to influence this election, he should be impeached for his clear incompetence to do his fucking job but nothing will come of it.
You don't have any non partisan facts because you're pushing partisan nonsense.
1 ModsSuckTrumpBalls 2017-10-23
Russia had no pro hillary facebook ads. Where the hell did you read that? And what do the Russians know about the uranium deal that you don't? You know that uranium never left the United States right?
Lol. Trump doesn't give a fuck. If he did, he would have actually hired a special prosececutor for Clinton. Dumps billions? Get the fuck outta here.
Healthcare didn't collapse when Nixon resigned or when Clinton got impeached, no fucking clue where you came up with that.
Putin is already laughing at us because he helped a clown get elected and America has never been more divided.
It's easy to pretend we dodged a bullet when you make up a bunch of crazy shit that you think would happen.
1 GoodWillPower 2017-10-23
Facebook themselves has admitted to Russian purchasing of ads. After looking into it more, you're right, there is no statements telling who the ads were supporting.
CNN Article
Billionsmillions. I stand corrected there.He said in his campaign speeches he was concerned with voter fraud and would be willing to pursue litigation if he lost the election.
I now pay $1200 per month on healthcare for my family. Last year I payed about $600. At a point I payed ~$200 The hell are you talking about? Do you pay for insurance?
According to FB and CNN? I work around all walks of life and have family and friends on both side of the political spectrum and have noticed zero change in my daily life other than my stocks going through the roof.
1 ModsSuckTrumpBalls 2017-10-23
The Russian ads backed Stein, Bernie, and Trump.
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/09/26/facebook-russia-trump-sanders-stein-243172
They were basically meant to hurt Hillary from every angle.
Well he hasn't spent any money himself to investigate voter fraud. Probably because his outlandish statement about millions of illegals voting would be proven completely false.
What state do you live in? I don't have a family but I pay 40 bucks a month for my healthcare. There's a lot that goes into why premiums rise. The CBO projects that the republcian health plan would do nothing to lower premiums. So I'm not sure why you'd think you'd be better off with their plan.
Yeah the stock market is doing well. Rich Americans will do quite well under Trump. Over 50% of these new tax cuts will go to the top 1%. On top of that, 30% will go to the top 0.1%. The middle class is also going to get slammed when they take away certain deductions.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/janetnovack/2017/09/29/trump-plan-delivers-massive-tax-cuts-to-the-1-and-sharp-kick-to-upper-middle-class/
So yeah, I'm glad your stocks are doing well. But the majority of people that voted for Trump don't have thousands invested in the market. I hope he actually gets around to helping those people at some point.
1 GoodWillPower 2017-10-23
I appreciate the info on the ads, will change the OP. Any Politico article is going to be heavily left biased and The No Agenda show I listen to stated that the ads were specifically anti Trump. In my opinion it doesn't make sense that there was honestly, no one thought he would win.
I mean... I am middle class and I have stocks. I'm not coming up by the millions but I've certainly never seen such an awesome spike in my gains. Even my 401k climbed from 8% to 20%+.
I have a family and definitely pay $1200 per month as I don't qualify for Government assistance, so I am responsible for covering healthcare in the family plan which, even though I only have one child, makes me responsible for covering as many children as my wife can handle...She cried when the EO for trading across state lines was passed. The proposed tax cut should also put a few thousand back in my pocket next year as well.
Also, the prosecution of foul play from the previous administration is moving along organically. The judicial system will have their time to prosecute and as with Weiner and Awan, the court will reach a just conclusion.
1 fillinthe___ 2017-10-23
Pro-tip: Anything called "No Agenda" definitely has an agenda. Example: The No Spin Zone was all spin. The only true name is Info Wars, a site dedicated to being an every day battle against truth.
1 GoodWillPower 2017-10-23
Pro tip: listen to the podcast so you know what you're talking about. The podcast does zero advertisement has millions of viewers, is an editors choice and the show is based solely on nonpartisan analysis of the media.
1 Edelmaniac 2017-10-23
$40 a month is either shit insurance or....are you hiring? Cause I pay $300 a month and I feel like I'm in good shape with that.
1 xKLMx 2017-10-23
Is that for family? I'm in New England and pay $90 a month for fantastic top level insurance. That just covers me though, no one else.
1 LiterallyASupernova 2017-10-23
Insurance has been going up since like 1990. At a consistent rate every year. Just Google on images.google.come and see the pretty pictures
1 GoodWillPower 2017-10-23
Mine went up by 200% in one month. My lifestyle was changed over night and my wife cried for hours the day we found out.
How's that for a pretty picture?
1 BuschMaster_J 2017-10-23
Like /u/Deckard256 my emphasis
1 Deckard256 2017-10-23
To expand further on this point, there seems to have been an accident related to the transport of yellowcake from Wyoming to Canada in 2012.
Uranium one moved these containers of yellowcake too fast and at least one of them exploded and contaminated three workers. This is the uranium that everyone in the administration repeatedly said was never leaving the untied states.
After trying some internet searches, I find someone on abt who claims that a regulatory agency in Canada scrubbed information from their website about all of this. He was quick enough to grab screenshots.
The incident :
http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/10/us/canada-yellowcake/index.html The screenshots : http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread1175879/pg1
1 Kcarp6380 2017-10-23
So is the new talking point it’s cool because the uranium cannot leave the US anyway?
1 iDont_Knowu 2017-10-23
Why do people say it can’t leave the U.S? I’m lost on that part
1 Rockin_Dead 2017-10-23
The company needed a special license for export which they didn't have.
1 GoodWillPower 2017-10-23
Didn't and still don't?
1 JoePesciOfGoneFishin 2017-10-23
Its almost always just in response to people claiming we physically gave Russia a bunch of uranium, like we were handing them a bomb making kit or something.
Ive never once seen a reference to uranium not leaving the country that wasnt in response to some kind of disinformation
1 thecaramelbandit 2017-10-23
They purchased a financial interest in a uranium mining company.
Nothing about the deal allows them to export uranium to Russia.
It's illegal to export uranium to Russia.
So this whole situation seems really... minor to me. I don't understand why anyone cares at all.
1 GoodWillPower 2017-10-23
The fact that HRC received $100+ million around the time of the deal.
In 2008 she reported a salary of $186,600 according to this article . In one transaction she made about 50 years worth of Secretary of State money.
Seems kinda odd.
1 thecaramelbandit 2017-10-23
The Clinton Foundation received that money, not HRC.
1 dickie_smalls 2017-10-23
How generous
1 ShillyMadison 2017-10-23
Woah its almost like the Clinton foundation might be a proxy or something! That would be insane though right? Its a fully functioning normal charity! Which is why the donations dropped off by a sizeable percentage because people realized they could no longer buy influence?
its almost like when saudi arabia donated 25 million dollars and got a huge weapons deal approved a couple months later.
Bill also got a 500k speaking fee for a speech in russia before hill signed off on that uranium one deal. But youre right its a nothingburger
1 GoodWillPower 2017-10-23
Received the money as bribery for the Uranium One deal? Seems like a strange thing to donate to...
From the Clinton Foundation website. Not sure what that had to do with Uranium or why the donation was of such a large amount.
Any ideas?
1 Deckard256 2017-10-23
https://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-foundation-as-russians-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html
"Mr. Christensen, 65, noted that despite assurances by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission that uranium could not leave the country without Uranium One or ARMZ obtaining an export license — which they do not have — yellowcake from his property was routinely packed into drums and trucked off to a processing plant in Canada.
Asked about that, the commission confirmed that Uranium One has, in fact, shipped yellowcake to Canada even though it does not have an export license. Instead, the transport company doing the shipping, RSB Logistic Services, has the license. A commission spokesman said that “to the best of our knowledge” most of the uranium sent to Canada for processing was returned for use in the United States. A Uranium One spokeswoman, Donna Wichers, said 25 percent had gone to Western Europe and Japan. At the moment, with the uranium market in a downturn, nothing is being shipped from the Wyoming mines."
1 illiterati 2017-10-23
How would you feel if North Korea had a financial interest in American uranium production.
I don't think Russia has don't much of anything in this recent commie scare, but I wouldn't think having then tied to uranium in any way would be acceptable.
1 YPG-Got-Raqqa 2017-10-23
Because this mine was able to produce just a small percentage of the United States annual production. Also the USA produces just a small part of the worlds annual production. The USA actually gets most of its uranium used in reactors from Russia! Following the post Cold War reduction in nuclear weapons the Russians diluted their HEU so it could be sold on the civilian market. These isn’t anything strategic about the uranium rights involved in this deal.
1 apricotasd10 2017-10-23
The "talking points" have literally always been "she was one of nine departments who had to sign off, and the Uranium is not allowed to be exported".
Like, literally that's always been what people have said, because that's what it's always been.
A nothingburger. The fact the FBI didn't tell anyone involved in the deal that a incidental bribery scandal was going on does nothing to change it being a nothingburger.
1 Rockin_Dead 2017-10-23
So why would the Russians bribe only one out of seven agency head's?
1 GoodWillPower 2017-10-23
In 2008 she reported a salary of $186,600 according to this article . In one transaction she made about 50 years worth of Secretary of State money.
Seems kinda odd.
1 Rockin_Dead 2017-10-23
Didn't the money go to her charity?
1 GoodWillPower 2017-10-23
It's incredibly easy to launder money through chairites via tax loopholes in the US. Regardless once the money goes into the pool as a chairtable donation, it's easy to file for innocence in a court of law (how can you really prove that someone wasn't just feeling so charitable they wanted to give $130 mil to a "good cause").
1 Rockin_Dead 2017-10-23
The republicans spent at least year a foot up her ass, you think they would've found out anything questionable about her charity.
1 GoodWillPower 2017-10-23
Again, it's damn near impossible to trace money laundering to politicians that way.
The Clinton Foundation is very well ran. If Trump did not get I to office I guarantee all the dirt on it wouldn't be as in the light as it is now
1 LeakyTrump 2017-10-23
“Charity”
1 Nogrim6 2017-10-23
Rule #1 - if Either of the Clinton accuse someone of doing something, before you buy in to it, check to make sure they themselves are not already doing the same thing.
1 xgozax 2017-10-23
I don't think it would have toppled the US Government. We would have been more or less in the same position as we are in now, divided as ever speculating on how much russia is influencing our government and the US would be seen as a joke internationally much like it is being seen as today.
1 Stantoninus 2017-10-23
The only reason "we" are speculating on this idiotic topic is because it has been pushed incessantly by a media which has proven its preference for lying over all other things. It is a non story, except insofar as it is an example of corruption and patriot-baiting for the military, just like during the cold war. We've seen this show before, and it was just as shitty the first time. It's not a Russian plot, it's the plot of the US oligarchs pulled out of the playbook from the 80s. Unfortunately people are too young and gullible to realize it.
1 meta4one 2017-10-23
This was what that bitch Hillary wanted in the first place, war with Russia.
1 RobertLeeSwagger 2017-10-23
Interesting, then when trump surprisingly wins, Russia or whoever, still tries to push their plan forward, but doesn't have enough of a case with trump to make a splash
1 GoodWillPower 2017-10-23
That's kinda what I was thinking.
1 RobertLeeSwagger 2017-10-23
It's a good thought. Makes the last the last few months a bit more logical.
1 Space__Stuff 2017-10-23
This. Suggested this to my dad earlier today, I was pondering the motive of WHY Russia would buy the uranium from the US. Russia has more resources than half the world. Answer? Politcal leverage. Question is: are the Clintons that fucking stupid? I don't think their motive was money. 145m isn't that much.
1 steazystich 2017-10-23
So they played both sides.
1 scallywagmcbuttnuggt 2017-10-23
I almost wish Hillary had won so the opposition could more united.
Almost
1 AdalineTheMaker 2017-10-23
Trump didn't even wanna pay that gold star family 25 grand. No way he spends billions on anything. He probably doesn't even have a billion dollars.
1 Facts_About_Cats 2017-10-23
That's not at all how you play chess.
1 mastigia 2017-10-23
That is kinda what I am getting at. The perception is that this is US uranium. But I thought it was a mine in Kazakhastan. So, did the US company just own that mine? The controversy over HRC cupping balls on this deal, I don't get why it is framed as something that is in the US.
1 GoodWillPower 2017-10-23
Didn't and still don't?
1 dickie_smalls 2017-10-23
How generous
1 ShillyMadison 2017-10-23
Woah its almost like the Clinton foundation might be a proxy or something! That would be insane though right? Its a fully functioning normal charity! Which is why the donations dropped off by a sizeable percentage because people realized they could no longer buy influence?
its almost like when saudi arabia donated 25 million dollars and got a huge weapons deal approved a couple months later.
Bill also got a 500k speaking fee for a speech in russia before hill signed off on that uranium one deal. But youre right its a nothingburger
1 GoodWillPower 2017-10-23
Received the money as bribery for the Uranium One deal? Seems like a strange thing to donate to...
From the Clinton Foundation website. Not sure what that had to do with Uranium or why the donation was of such a large amount.
Any ideas?
1 BuschMaster_J 2017-10-23
https://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-foundation-as-russians-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html "Mr. Christensen, 65, noted that despite assurances by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission that uranium could not leave the country without Uranium One or ARMZ obtaining an export license — which they do not have — yellowcake from his property was routinely packed into drums and trucked off to a processing plant in Canada. Asked about that, the commission confirmed that Uranium One has, in fact, shipped yellowcake to Canada even though it does not have an export license. Instead, the transport company doing the shipping, RSB Logistic Services, has the license. A commission spokesman said that “to the best of our knowledge” most of the uranium sent to Canada for processing was returned for use in the United States. A Uranium One spokeswoman, Donna Wichers, said 25 percent had gone to Western Europe and Japan. At the moment, with the uranium market in a downturn, nothing is being shipped from the Wyoming mines."