The Hillary Clinton Uranium One conspiracy theory doesn't make any sense.
0 2017-10-29 by Pineapple__Jews
“I have to say that this is one of those things where reasonable people cannot disagree: There just aren’t two sides,” said Jeffrey Lewis, an expert on nuclear materials and nonproliferation at the Middlebury Institute of International Studies in Monterey, California.
According to the conspiracy theory, Clinton received money from several people affiliated with the uranium mine deal, and then pushed the CFIUS to approve it in return.
The problem is, that’s not how CFIUS works. Clinton’s vote would have been only one of nine, as the reviews are run by the Treasury Department and other Cabinet secretaries get to weigh in.
“The secretary of state is one, and frankly not usually a very powerful, member of the committee,” said Steve Grundman, a fellow at the Atlantic Council who dealt with CFIUS reviews while serving in the Pentagon in the 1990s. “You have to remember with CFIUS, the first letter stands for the committee.”
Also, Cabinet secretaries almost never deal with the committee themselves, instead delegating to underlings. For Clinton, that delegate was the assistant secretary of state for economic and business affairs, Jose Fernandez.
“Secretary Clinton never intervened with me on any CFIUS matter,” Fernandez told Time in 2015. Two former State Department officials who served under Clinton told Newsweek that Clinton would have been notified of a CFIUS decision only if there were disagreement among members of the committee, which would push a final decision to the president. The CFIUS decision on the Uranium One deal, however, was unanimous—all nine representatives agreed to approve it.
“For this conspiracy theory to be true, she would have to twist the arms of all these other eight Cabinet secretaries, which is completely absurd and completely implausible,” said Max Bergmann, a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress who specializes in U.S.-Russia relations and who worked at the State Department under both Clinton and her successor, John Kerry.
The claim that Clinton received big money for the Clinton Foundation from those tied to the Tenex–Uranium One deal is also tenuous. PolitiFact reviewed that claim, which was floated in a book by an editor at the far-right media outlet Breitbart, and found that almost all the money came from Frank Giustra, who sold his stake in Uranium One before Clinton became secretary of state.
According to the experts, even if Clinton had somehow managed to tilt the CFIUS decision in favor of Russian buyers, it wouldn’t matter: The mine isn’t very important.
The Russian-owned company does not have a license to export the uranium, and the actual mining process is not sensitive at all.
“It’s just a mine,” Lewis said. “There’s no technology that’s special. There’s no shortage of uranium around the world.”
Also, the deal took place during a period when the U.S. was trying to rebuild economic ties to Russia after Clinton and President Barack Obama initiated a “reset” with that country. The U.S. was buying helicopters from Russia for Afghanistan’s army, as well as rockets for U.S. satellite programs. It was a time before Russia had invaded Ukraine and meddled in the U.S. election.
Can anyone refute and of these points in the article? If you're just going to troll, don't bother.
43 comments
1 pby1000 2017-10-29
From the leaked emails, they knew they were doing something wrong and illegal. I think they would know which is why they sought to hide it...
1 kit8642 2017-10-29
Don't worries, op is a "satire" account. What ever that means.
https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/79bvy6/reminder_that_the_clinton_foundation_is_one_of/dp0q17b/
1 pby1000 2017-10-29
That explains it then...
1 seekthetruthnotlies 2017-10-29
what emails? I believe you but I would like to be able to cite them myself
1 Memphisinacage10 2017-10-29
https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/225
Jennifer Palmieri emails John Podesta 3 hours after the Uranium One story breaks
“It’s out there”
1 seekthetruthnotlies 2017-10-29
thanks
1 gomer2566 2017-10-29
For all we know they were asked for comment and this was them letting each other know the story is out. It doesnt mean anything illegal happened.
1 pby1000 2017-10-29
Sure, but "colluding" with Russia is not illegal. We are not at war with Russia.
1 pby1000 2017-10-29
Thank you.
1 Kolyin 2017-10-29
Be specific?
1 pby1000 2017-10-29
Someone posted a link here to the Uranium One emails that were leaked about a year ago.
1 Kolyin 2017-10-29
I think I saw it, but nothing that indicated they thought they'd done anything wrongv with the committee.
1 pby1000 2017-10-29
Fair enough. We will see what happens.
1 paulie_purr 2017-10-29
Other ammunition I'm not seeing here is Bill C. getting 500k for a speech in Russia around the time the deal was going down, and the new-and-improved FBI Anon indicating that the exact Russian company involved was under FBI investigation for bribery activities. The surface of these things riles up suspicions, as their accounting in Clinton Cash accomplished (although Schweizer deliberately fuddled with dates and retracted portions of that book).
The question is whether this is a pay-for-play scheme to the Clinton's benefit. This article does a decent job bringing some context to the table. Still, I wouldn't put it past the Clintons to make money off the back of government operations (nor any politician), it's just a matter if actual laws were broken.
The context of the "Russian reset" era/pre-Chrimea era of conflict are factors roundly ignored. So too are basic facts, you have guys calling into Michael Savage who believe Russia actually received shipments of uranium in order to make nukes to kill us. Isn't this the kind of "we need to work with Russia" that's been yelled in our faces for the last year plus?
How come no one's asking Trump to try and retract the deal if it's such a big problem? It's probably more beneficial to keep talking about the story cause it can be framed as "looking bad," but who knows how much this corresponds to reality.
1 Pineapple__Jews 2017-10-29
How would Hillary have managed to get all other eight CFIUS votes?
Uranium isn't particularly rare and Russia couldn't take it out of the country anyways, so how is this worse than any other mineral that could be mined?
As the article says, this took place prior to the Ukraine invasion, when both countries were making relatively minor goodwill transactions to improve relations. Did the US need to be buy helicopters from Russia? Of course not. Ditto for the mines in the United States.
1 IanPhlegming 2017-10-29
I think by this point people "in the know" are aware that not doing what the Clintons want is hazardous to your health.
1 Pineapple__Jews 2017-10-29
Do you genuinely believe that?
1 sceneredacted 2017-10-29
It would absolutely be hazardous to your career if you didn't go along with the person most widely expected to be the next POTUS. You'd have to be willfully, stupidly blind to not see that.
1 IanPhlegming 2017-10-29
Yes.
1 Pineapple__Jews 2017-10-29
I always assumed people were joking when they talked about that.
1 IanPhlegming 2017-10-29
Then you clearly haven't done much research and investigation or you're not in the right subreddit.
1 Pineapple__Jews 2017-10-29
I'm free to be interested in some conspiracy theories while rejecting the dumb ones.
1 IanPhlegming 2017-10-29
This clown's a fool or a tool, so my response isn't for him. It's for anybody who might be entertaining the idea the Clinton Death List is a "dumb" conspiracy. Just go take a look at the list yourself, and what the people who died were involved with at the time. Don't take my word for it. Don't take the "dumb" guy's response. Look for yourself. Because he doesn't want you to.
1 Pineapple__Jews 2017-10-29
I actually do want them to.
I'll help get people started.
1 IanPhlegming 2017-10-29
SNOPES! LOL. Dude, keep playing that hand whydoncha? It's like you just ran into your own end zone.
Obviously Vince Foster is the best known, so we'll start there. This is a very dense investigation. The holes in the "official story" are run down extremely effectively here. I particularly love how the gun in the report and the gun in the picture are totally different colors.
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/FOSTER_COVERUP/foster.php
Here's a collection of their "Greatest Hits." There are many more than this, but I like the "33" that's part of the headline, suggesting the secret society backing these two satanists have:
http://www.wnd.com/2016/08/clinton-death-list-33-most-intriguing-cases/
Wasn't really going to go into detail, but the S'nopes clown show was just too good to pass up.
1 Pineapple__Jews 2017-10-29
Literally linking to Wing Nut Daily aka Birther Central.
1 IanPhlegming 2017-10-29
TWO replies to one post! Doth protest too much territory now. Ding ding ding! You lose!
1 Pineapple__Jews 2017-10-29
You seem very excitable.
1 Pineapple__Jews 2017-10-29
Of course you don't like Snopes - they use facts.
1 Allinon72 2017-10-29
How could Hollywood cover up rampant sexual abuse for decades? Most people involved with Clinton probably know about the body count.
1 treeslooklikelamb 2017-10-29
Is that a rhetorical question?
1 kit8642 2017-10-29
Is the New York Times considered a conservative conspiracy site?
https://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-foundation-as-russians-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html?_r=0&referer=
1 Anybodygotanycrack 2017-10-29
https://www.snopes.com/hillary-clinton-uranium-russia-deal/ Clinton didn't have the authority to approve or deny the deal, and the majority of the Clinton Foundation donations were given by someone who wouldn't have been impacted by the deal
1 kalirizian 2017-10-29
Frank Giustra is not a good person and is in tight with the clinton machine. His fingerprints are on this scandal aswell.
https://voat.co/v/pizzagate/1445370
https://voat.co/v/pizzagate/2213260
https://voat.co/v/pizzagate/1575825
Funny how these things slowly start to mesh together when the same people and organisations keep popping up together.
1 RocketSurgeon22 2017-10-29
I don't know enough or have all the facts. Neither does the person who is writing this. He makes good points but left a lot of known details out. In my opinion a special prosecutor needs to be assigned to investigate. Not a Hillary Donor or Establishment friendly Comey. Someone capable of doing the due diligence necessary.
1 Kolyin 2017-10-29
Why a special prosecutor, instead of a standard investigation?
1 RocketSurgeon22 2017-10-29
Because it cannot be trusted. Too many on both sides have sold their souls.
1 gomer2566 2017-10-29
Because Trump already fired one head of the investigation and the head of the DOJ appointed by Trump had already recused him self.
1 sceneredacted 2017-10-29
Yes, because as we all know, Hillary Clinton was completely lacking any influence outside of the state department. That's how she got the DNC to bias the primaries her way, just using her non-existent influence.
1 montrev 2017-10-29
yeah it does
1 MollysBrownPizza 2017-10-29
You quote the Center for American Progress's Max Bergmann. The CAP is a known Clinton ally...of course he is going to slant it in favor of her.
To suggest that we gave rights to Russia to mine 20% of our strategic Uranium is not a big deal and that it is "just a mine" is ludicrous.
I am calling shill post.
1 Pineapple__Jews 2017-10-29
What do you worry Russia will do with with the uranium?
1 DerkDerkinson 2017-10-29
The only thing you left out in your explanation of the Uranium One deal is that shortly thereafter, Bill Clinton gave a speech in Moscow, and the Clinton Foundation received a large sum of money for that speech. That’s the heart of the conspiracy.
You would have to be naive to think the 9 other people involved in approving the deal would not also be receiving some sort of kickback in one way or another...
1 Pineapple__Jews 2017-10-29
Yes lots of people all over the world give money to the Clinton Foundation. It does a lot of good things. So who are the other people involved and what evidence do you have of them being paid? Is Obama receiving kickbacks as well?
1 postfuturology 2017-10-29
$140 million, wasnt it?