From the politics forum guidelines - As often stated this is not a bulletin board it is a place to debate politics. For that reason cut and pasted articles or links [including video] should be used sparingly and more as a way to highlight a persons viewpoint rather than as a replacement for a persons viewpoint.
Oh, it's spare as I rarely post in politics My viewpoint is that it's an interesting report by Shaun Hannity on the Uranium One Deal.
Aerianne OK so you accept Hannity as a good source of news and in-depth unbiased reporting...ok So do you believe this that Clinton was very much involved it seems to me to be more of a right wing smoke and mirrors distraction * …there’s a very good reason Congress isn’t investigating Hillary Clinton’s “big uranium deal” with Russia. It’s because the story is absolute crap… • No, Hillary Clinton didn’t “sell America’s uranium.” She didn’t own it, or control it, and never had. This entire accusation is a farce. In 2010 the stockholders of a Canadian mining company, Uranium One, accepted a bid from the Russian nuclear-energy agency, Rosatom, for a majority of their shares. They cashed out. Uranium One was a worldwide producer. Among its assets were some U.S. uranium mines. The decision was taken by pension-fund managers, other institutional investors and private investors from Canada, the U.S., Europe and elsewhere. The deal had previously been approved by company management and independent directors on the board. This is what’s known as “private property,” “commerce” and “capitalism.” Trump should read up on it. The burden of proof for a U.S. government official to intervene in a Canadian stock-market transaction would have to be pretty high. • No, Hillary didn’t “approve” the sale, either. She was just one of 14 — count ’em, 14 — people who sat on a U.S. government committee that might, in theory, have intervened but didn’t. The others on the committee included the secretaries of the Treasury, homeland security, energy and defense; the White House budget director; the attorney general; and the chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers. So, as far as we know, none of them said peep. The committee could have intervened if it thought the deal threatened U.S. national security. Others who could also have intervened in the deal, but saw no reason to, included the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and regulators in Canada and elsewhere. • There is a very good reason none of those people or organizations tried to halt the deal. It wasn’t controversial. And if it weren’t for Trump’s cynical demagoguery, it wouldn’t be now. America is a bit player in worldwide uranium production, and the amount involved was about half a percent — yes, really — of global supply. Furthermore, uranium has been a drag on the international markets for years. There’s too much of it around. Miners are giving it away for less than it costs to dig up. There was no reason to think of it as an especially precious resource. In 2010, when Russia agreed to this deal, the price of uranium had already fallen by 75% in three years. And since then it’s halved again. (But uranium prices have perked up a bit since Trump’s election. Long-suffering investors are hoping he’ll approve more nuclear reactors and buy lots more warheads. It’s another reason Vladimir Putin has reason to be so pleased with his protégé.) • Finally, it’s worth remembering that this entire “story” was whipped up like a meringue by Peter Schweizer, a far-right hack at Breitbart. And, like a meringue, it’s almost all air. http://www.marketwatch.com/story/trump-spreads-more-fake-news-on-hillarys-uranium-deal-2017-03-28
A In what way did you find it ‘interesting’ and made you wish to spread it? To me this seems to be Hannity (and others including Trump) wanting to pushing a spurious conspiracy theory to spread disinformation and muddy the waters. So to me it’s more a sad indictment of a corrupt philosophy than it is interesting
Don't you wish people responsible for reporting the news had to be hooked up to a lie detector machine during reporting?
LOL @ 11:25. How much do you trust the media? 37% Not at all Fortunately I had already stopped listening.
I don't agree that lie detectors are a reliable scientific tool. Lie detectors and the interpretation of the results given by them are notoriously unreliable, that's why they aren't admissible as evidence in court.
A That would only work if they didn’t actually believe in the fake news, that’s seems to be the problem at the moment, there seem to be people in the US on the right that would believe white was black if their political grouping told them that’s what they should believe.
It got 4 Pinocchio's by the Washington Post. Not 20%. Couldn't be exported. A small part of a large global supply chain of Uranium which Khazakstan is flooding. We're not building any nuclear weapons so it's simply a strategic resource like oil. Analysis | The repeated, incorrect claim that Russia obtained ‘20 percent of our uranium’
The Uranium One Deal will get further review. "In a letter to House judiciary committee chairman Bob Goodlatte, assistant attorney general Stephen Boyd said the senior prosecutors will make recommendations to the attorney general and deputy general on whether "any matters not currently under investigation should be opened, whether any matters currently under investigation require further resources, or whether any merit the appointment of a special counsel." DOJ will consider new special counsel on Clinton Foundation - CNNPolitics Jeff Sessions is to testify before the House Judiciary Committee this morning. //www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/11/14/sessions-to-face-uranium-one-clinton-foundation-recusal-questions-on-hill.html
Im not seeing any true connections to the clintcuckclan. It would be nice, but seems like straw grabbing and coming up with the short one every-time.. /Id be happy to be wrong.
