Trump - The NEW, New Thread

[Vlad Drkulec]

Re: Trump - The NEW, New Thread

Really? Even if he is the sole or majority shareholder? You don't think that is relevant!!!!!

No it isn't until such time as it would be illegal for Russian entities to hold debt in U.S. firms. It seems odd that we are talking about debt when many millions of dollars in actual payments from Russian sources went to Clinton and her cronies while she was secretary of state. Podesta of the hacked emails received tens of millions.

[Ben Daswani]

Re: Trump - The NEW, New Thread

The above is highly debatable.

What's debatable exactly? The video highlights the ridiculousness of #AllLivesMatter. Of course all lives matter. But the system acts like black lives don't. That's why #BlackLivesMatter is relevant. Not because only black lives matter, but because, disproportionately, the police, the government, and society as a whole act like black lives don't.

That being said, is that the only point that you disagree with that I made?

No, your point on Pence didn't make sense to me either. You said:

Really? Show me an example of government enforced conversion therapy. i know that Pence harbors religious beliefs about this that I abhor however he has made it very clear that his religious beliefs are not relevant in a system that separates church and state.

The issue isn't that the government enforces this form of torture. The issue is that it takes place and the government doesn't ban it. The government will never ban it under Trump and Pence. Pence supports it. How can you support a President who picks as his running mate a cretin who wants to keep the torture of children legal?

Seriously, I am open to hearing intelligent counterpoints to everything in my post.

Your post contains reasons why you don't support Clinton. I understand that. I don't particularly support Clinton either. I just think she would have been better as President than Trump has been.

Don't underestimate the symbolism of America electing Trump over Clinton. A man who brags about committing sexual assault went up against a woman and the man won. An entire generation of little boys and girls saw that. Kids watch TV. They watch the news. They know the disgusting things that Trump has said. And they saw that it doesn't matter. They saw that you can be outwardly racist, sexist and homophobic, and still win in America.

And practically, I have no doubt that Trump's Presidency is worse for this country than Clinton's would've been. You talk about the alleged shady dealings that the Clinton Foundation made. But I want to know: practically, what would have been worse under Clinton? Do you genuinely believe that Israel would be nuked by Iran if Clinton had won? That's paranoia. It's not happening. It was never happening. It'll never happen. Iran doesn't have a death wish.

I can list off by the dozen the things that are, practically, worse under Trump than they would have been under Clinton. That piece of shit Gorsuch was put on the Supreme Court. During his confirmation hearing, Trump said he had the words of the "late, great Antonin Scalia" in his mind when he appointed Gorsuch. Have you read many opinions by Scalia? I have. They're disgusting. In one, he compares homosexuality to murder. And he was replaced by his clone. This is bad for gays, for women, for trans people... for everyone who needs their constitutional rights protected by the Supreme Court. Gorsuch has another thirty years. Who knows who else will die over the next four years? Trump's election has fucked the Supreme Court for decades to come.

What about healthcare? I'm not a socialist by any means, but how can anyone, in the 21st century, not support universal healthcare in the developed world? Over 20 million people are about to lose their health coverage. This would not have happened under Clinton.

What about criminal justice reform? Whites and blacks use and sell drugs at equal rates in the United States, yet blacks are ten times more likely to be imprisoned for drug-related offences. And yet you cheered the election of Trump, who appointed a known racist in Sessions as AG. And Sessions vowed to amp up the war on drugs. The war on drugs isn't even a war on drugs. It's a war on communities of color. This is a demonstrable fact. With Clinton we would've seen criminal justice reform and drug law reform. With Trump we won't. Instead, we're moving backwards.

I could go on and on and on. The election of Trump hurts people of color, women, gays and trans people, in demonstrable, practical ways. And so I ask: who would've been hurt by the election of Clinton? Don't tell me all the bad things Clinton has done. Tell me what you fear she would've done. Tell me who would've been hurt by her election, and how.

[Sid Belzberg]

Re: Trump - The NEW, New Thread

Not because only black lives matter, but because, disproportionately, the police, the government, and society as a whole act like black lives don't.

Yes and....all of these purported injustices went on for eight years under President Obama. If anything it got worst under his regime. Did you know that the founding of the KKK was democrats? Did you know that the biggest opponents to LBJ's civil rights bill were his very own democrats? The Black Lives Movement refers to Israel as an apartheid State guilty of genocide. Let me educate you on what Israels position is. 2,000,000 Arabs live in Israel with full rights like any other Israeli citizen and even have seats in the Knesset. Are Jews allowed in Gaza with equal rights? The same antiIsrael platform the UN has been pushing for years. I am delighted that Niki Hayley is the new sheriff in town.
How do you expect me to give the BLM platform credence?

The issue is that it takes place and the government doesn't ban it.

And...again if this is true where was Obama hiding for eight years? Show me an example of where someone is forced against their will to undergo conversion therapy and the authorities have taken a blind eye to it?

You talk about the alleged shady dealings that the Clinton Foundation made. But I want to know: practically, what would have been worse under Clinton? Do you genuinely believe that Israel would be nuked by Iran if Clinton had won? That's paranoia. It's not happening. It was never happening. It'll never happen. Iran doesn't have a death wish.

The alleged "shady dealings" of Clinton are well documented in the Wikileaks diplomatic cable exposure (not the Podesta emails or the DNC hack) much to Hillary's chagrin. The current exports of tons of Uranium from Kazakhstan to Iran from Putin's company he acquired with Clinton's approval is not a theory, it has been and is currently going on. Iran in within 8 years is perfectly free to resume their weapons of mass destruction program. Yes Iran does have a "death wish" and I know this directly from talking with Generals in the Israeli defense forces.

Just these few things make me want to throw up when I hear about the Democrats.

[Ben Daswani]

Re: Trump - The NEW, New Thread

You've dodged my most pertinent question. I'll quote it.

And so I ask: who would've been hurt by the election of Clinton? Don't tell me all the bad things Clinton has done. Tell me what you fear she would've done. Tell me who would've been hurt by her election, and how.

[Sid Belzberg]

Re: Trump - The NEW, New Thread

nd so I ask: who would've been hurt by the election of Clinton? Don't tell me all the bad things Clinton has done. Tell me what you fear she would've done. Tell me who would've been hurt by her election, and how.

The thing's Clinton has already done is vital in deciding the viability of a candidate. My biggest fear would be continuing the policy of not dealing with Iran as the world's largest state sponsor of terror. Her willingness that is perfectly acceptable to approve access to large amounts of Uranium stockpiles to Russia is pure insanity.Uranium that is now being shipped to Iran from Russia was thanks to Clinton's approval.
This cavalier attitude towards the threat that Iran poses to the world and its alliance with Russia would be my biggest fear that truly would be the end of the world as we know it. Obama's poor attitude towards Israel the only democracy in that region was disturbing.

[Paul Bonham]

Re: Trump - The NEW, New Thread

The thing's Clinton has already done is vital in deciding the viability of a candidate. My biggest fear would be continuing the policy of not dealing with Iran as the world's largest state sponsor of terror. Her willingness that is perfectly acceptable to approve access to large amounts of Uranium stockpiles to Russia is pure insanity.Uranium that is now being shipped to Iran from Russia was thanks to Clinton's approval.
This cavalier attitude towards the threat that Iran poses to the world and its alliance with Russia would be my biggest fear that truly would be the end of the world as we know it. Obama's poor attitude towards Israel the only democracy in that region was disturbing.

Secretary Clinton was one of several cabinet members who needed to approve that uranium deal. As well as the Canadian government (Uranium One was a Canadian company). You make it seem like Hillary Clinton was solely to blame. Nice try, but your bias is showing.

You also make it sound like Clinton was actually approving shipping of uranium from Kazakhstan to Iran. But such a thing was not even imagined by ANY of the agencies who signed off on that deal. You should be calling out all of those agencies and their cabinet members for lack of foresight, rather than making it seem like Clinton acted alone and wanted to see uranium get into the hands of Iran. Clinton did NOT act alone, Clinton did NOT want to see uranium get shipped to Iran.

The reasons the deal got approved by the several federal agencies were many: first, at the time there was growing cooperation between the Putin and Obama administrations that this deal played into. Second, no uranium could be exported out of the U.S. as a result of this deal, that would require a separate export license. Third, there were promises made by Uranium One, including that the company would be kept public, that were later broken (Uranium One was delisted from the Toronto Stock Exchange and taken private. As of 2013, Rosatom’s subsidiary, ARMZ, owned 100 percent of it.)

There was concern expressed over Russia getting control of the Kazakhstan uranium sites, but the above was enough to overcome that. What we can call that is lack of good judgment. You are alleging far worse than that.

You mention that tons of uranium are now going to Iran from Kazakhstan uranium properties: this is something that one must imagine would have happened somehow anyway.... somehow, Putin would have gotten control and made this happen if it is what he wanted. Uranium One was a Canadian company, not under the control of the U.S. government. To put that on the Clintons, and exclusively the Clintons, is absurd and seems to be the product of a poisoned mind. To suggest that the Clintons would trade interests in national security for donations to their Foundation has never been proven despite plenty of investigation.

And let's be clear: there are plenty of unproven allegations of Russian ties to the Trump administration, possibly even with Trump himself and his secret tax filings.... and you are sitting fine with that.

Gee, I wonder why you would treat unproven allegations against the Clintons DIFFERENTLY than unproven allegations against Trump?

Your assertions are wildly absurd and reflect a hideous personal grudge against the Clintons, perhaps hinting at something the Clintons did that badly affected you and your business career. But who would know? There's almost no public information about Sid Belzberg -- no biography, no geneology, almost NOTHING. Strangely enough, there is a branch of the Belzberg family in Canada that seems to have had public allegations (unproven) of ties to the Russian mafia.... huh! But in all these accounts, there is no mention of Sid Belzberg.



One other thing worth mentioning: according to Biblical end-time predictions, Russia, China and Iran are supposed to gang up on Israel in the last great battle on Earth. Therefore anything that encourages that to happen should be good from a Christian point of view, no? I've seen some Sunday morning evangelical pastors who practically rub their hands in glee as they describe any news event that seems to be accelerating us towards that great battle. So Russian shipping uranium to Iran: that is GOOD in evangelical Christian terms. From that point of view, Clinton and others approving that uranium deal must seem rather like Judas betraying Jesus for 30 pieces of silver. It all argues against the notion that we have free will.

If you are Jewish and not buying into these predictions, it must irk you to see anything that actually lends any credence to them.

[Sid Belzberg]

Re: Trump - The NEW, New Thread

Your assertions are wildly absurd and reflect a hideous personal grudge against the Clintons, perhaps hinting at something the Clintons did that badly affected you and your business career

This story first broke with the New York Times, do their assertions also reflect "a hideous personal grudge against the Clinton's, perhaps hinting at something the Clintons did that badly affected The New York Times". ?

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/u...m-company.html
From The New York Times
The headline on the website Pravda trumpeted President Vladimir V. Putin’s latest coup, its nationalistic fervor recalling an era when its precursor served as the official mouthpiece of the Kremlin: “Russian Nuclear Energy Conquers the World.”

The article, in January 2013, detailed how the Russian atomic energy agency, Rosatom, had taken over a Canadian company with uranium-mining stakes stretching from Central Asia to the American West. The deal made Rosatom one of the world’s largest uranium producers and brought Mr. Putin closer to his goal of controlling much of the global uranium supply chain.

But the untold story behind that story is one that involves not just the Russian president, but also a former American president and a woman who would like to be the next one.

At the heart of the tale are several men, leaders of the Canadian mining industry, who have been major donors to the charitable endeavors of former President Bill Clinton and his family. Members of that group built, financed and eventually sold off to the Russians a company that would become known as Uranium One."

One other thing worth mentioning: according to Biblical end-time predictions, Russia, China and Iran are supposed to gang up on Israel in the last great battle on Earth. Therefore anything that encourages that to happen should be good from a Christian point of view, no? I've seen some Sunday morning evangelical pastors who practically rub their hands in glee as they describe any news event that seems to be accelerating us towards that great battle. So Russian shipping uranium to Iran: that is GOOD in evangelical Christian terms. From that point of view, Clinton and others approving that uranium deal must seem rather like Judas betraying Jesus for 30 pieces of silver. It all argues against the notion that we have free will.

If you are Jewish and not buying into these predictions, it must irk you to see anything that actually lends any credence to them.

The above quote sounds like the ramblings of an insane person. You are now on my ignore list.

[Paul Bonham]

Re: Trump - The NEW, New Thread

This story first broke with the New York Times, do their assertions also reflect "a hideous personal grudge against the Clinton's, perhaps hinting at something the Clintons did that badly affected The New York Times". ?

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/u...m-company.html
From The New York Times
The headline on the website Pravda trumpeted President Vladimir V. Putin’s latest coup, its nationalistic fervor recalling an era when its precursor served as the official mouthpiece of the Kremlin: “Russian Nuclear Energy Conquers the World.”

The article, in January 2013, detailed how the Russian atomic energy agency, Rosatom, had taken over a Canadian company with uranium-mining stakes stretching from Central Asia to the American West. The deal made Rosatom one of the world’s largest uranium producers and brought Mr. Putin closer to his goal of controlling much of the global uranium supply chain.

But the untold story behind that story is one that involves not just the Russian president, but also a former American president and a woman who would like to be the next one.

At the heart of the tale are several men, leaders of the Canadian mining industry, who have been major donors to the charitable endeavors of former President Bill Clinton and his family. Members of that group built, financed and eventually sold off to the Russians a company that would become known as Uranium One."

Your post sounds like the ramblings of an insane person. You are now on my ignore list.

Bingo! Hit a nerve! Now I know that something has happened in the past that affected your own business dealings, and you blame the Clintons (or maybe just Democrats in general).

Great, another ignore list. You look and sound more like Vlad Drkulec every day. Full of pride, but unable to handle someone better with facts.

The NY Times article makes NO assertions. Lots of innuendo, but NO assertions. They know better. There is no proof of anything.

Did Hillary Clinton Give 20% of U.S. Uranium to Russia For Clinton Foundation Donations? FALSE!

[Vlad Drkulec]

Bernie Sanders wife bank fraud charges

http://insider.foxnews.com/2017/06/2...fbi-burlington

[Sid Belzberg]

Refutation to issues around UU1 and Clinton in Snopes and Poltifact

In fact Politifact had a more comprehensive reply then Snopes that includes all of the issues Snopes brought up. Here is the refutation to both Snopes and Politifact

by Jerome Hudson12 Jul 2016
Politifact, in its analysis of the Uranium One/Rosatom/State Department story first reported by the New York Times and based on research from the NYT bestseller Clinton Cash, ignores numerous key facts, conflates opinion for fact, deemphasizes other key facts, makes 13 errors, declares an incomplete donor record as complete, and takes the word of a major Clinton Foundation donor who has a demonstrable record of deceiving media outlets about basic facts in this deal. All of these errors curiously redound to the benefit of Hillary Clinton.

The fact-check article was written by Politifact staff writer Linda Qiu, who took to Twitter and joked about her newly acquired skill for searching SEDAR, Canada’s version of EDGAR for publicly traded companies.

Qiu, in her fact-check, made several factual errors — those inaccuracies and glaring omissions have been laid out below.

Politifact Claim: Politifact uses the opinion of Jeffrey Lewis to suggest that National Security implications of this deal were not serious. “Russia’s purchase of the company ‘had as much of an impact on national security as it would have if they set the money on fire,’ said Lewis. ‘That’s probably why (CFIUS and the NRC) approved it.’”

FACT: Mr. Lewis is entitled to his opinion, but the fact is the ranking members of the House Committees on Foreign Affairs, Armed Services, Financial Services, and Homeland Security wrote a 1,276-word letter expressing their “great concerns” about the deal and asked the Obama Administration to block it. Senator Barrasso of Wyoming, the state in which Uranium One’s flagship US property exists, also wrote the Obama Administration expressing his serious concerns about the deal.

Ms. Qiu also completely ignores the fact that State Department cables highlighted in WikiLeaks and reported in Clinton Cash raised questions and concerns about Russian attempts to corner the world uranium markets, specifically the mines in Kazakhstan involving Uranium One.

How and why did Ms. Qiu ignore these facts? Ms. Qiu substitutes Mr. Lewis’ opinion for these basic facts which are never even mentioned in the piece.

Politifact Claim: “For another, Russia doesn’t have the licenses to export uranium outside the United States, Oilprice.org pointed out, ‘so it’s somewhat disingenuous to say this uranium is now Russia’s, to do with what it pleases.’ The Kremlin was likely more interested in Uranium One’s assets in Kazakhstan, the world’s largest producer.”

FACT: Ms. Qiu ignores the facts presented by the New York Times (an article she cites) which completely contradicts and undermines this statement. Specifically, that uranium has been exported by Uranium One since the acquisition:

“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.”

Politifact Claim: Only one Clinton Foundation donor [Ian Telfer] was a major shareholder in Uranium One at the time of the State Department review. ”Using SEDAR, Canada’s filing system for public companies, we could only verify one UrAsia shareholder (Ian Telfer) who also owned stocks in Uranium One in 2010 and who chaired its Board of Directors. A New York Times investigation on the topic linked two others to Uranium One… 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, but it’s a far cry from nine investors funneling $145 million.”

FACT: Clinton Foundation donor Frank Holmes was a shareholder in Uranium One through his fund US Global Investors as late as 2011. See the SEC’s Uranium One disclosure. See also the New York Times‘ reporting on this matter.

Politifact Claim: “On the contrary, the donations detailed by author Schweizer occurred at least two years before the deal.”

FACT: Politifact failed to report that ARMZ’s June 2009 purchase of %17 of Uranium One also required a CFIUS review – one that was completed in November 2009. This can be seen on page 16 of Uranium One’s third quarter Management Discussion & Analysis.

Politifact Claim: “Russia didn’t get involved until two years later, in June 2009, when its nuclear agency started buying shares in Uranium One. The Kremlin upped its stake in the company from 17 percent to a controlling 51 percent the following year, and assumed total ownership of the company in 2013 (and renamed it to Uranium One Holding).”

FACT: ARMZ, the Rosatom subsidiary that made the three stage Uranium purchase, began discussions in July 2008.

See page 10 of this ARMZ presentation on the history of the ARMZ/Uranium One merger:
These two facts show the following. For nearly two years before the mid-2010 timeframe, both Uranium One’s shareholders and executives, as well as officials at Rosatom/ARMZ, were contemplating and then executing transactions covered by CFIUS. This brings many of the donations and the negotiations and transactions under question within a year of each other.

Politifact Claim: “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, but it’s a far cry from nine investors funneling $145 million.”

FACT: As we have seen already the history of negotiations for the Russian purchase of Uranium One extends back to at least July 2008. This purchase was always going to include a CFIUS review because of Uranium One’s U.S. Properties. But Ms Qiu omits another salient and widely reported point to make this claim. Throughout her piece, Ms. Qiu consistently and repeatedly acts as if the Clinton Foundation donation records are complete. This assumption is not only sloppy journalism, but runs completely contrary to the facts, as has been reported by Bloomberg, the Washington Post, and the New York Times. Indeed, as has been widely reported, we still don’t know from Canadian donors the full amounts and actual names of all the contributors. Specifically, donations from Sergey Kurzin, who is highlighted in the piece, still have not been completely reported by the Clinton Foundation. In fact, Mr. Giustra admitted to Bloomberg that Mr. Kurzin and one of Mr. Kurzin’s companies, Dragon Capital, were undisclosed donors to the Clinton Foundation. Again, these are easily verifiable facts that have been widely reported, are central to Ms. Qiu’s narrative, and yet she completely ignores them.

[Sid Belzberg]

Refutation to issues around UU1 and Clintons in Snopes and Politifact

“Investor” Connection Donation Year
Frank Giustra* UrAsia Energy founder $131.3 million Late 2005 and June 2007
Frank Holmes* Executive at U.S. Global Investors, which held Uranium One shares $250,000 to $500,000 $100,000 in March 2008
Neil Woodyer* Advisor to Uranium One $500,000 March 2008
Robert Disbrow Broker at Haywood Securities, which provided $58 million in capital UrAsia-Uranium One merger, according to Clinton Cash $1 million to $5 million $1 million in 2007
Paul Reynolds* Financial advisor on UrAsia-Uranium One merger $1 million to $5 million $1 million in March 2008
Robert Cross UrAsia shareholder and director $500,000 March 2008
Egizio Bianchini Cohead BMO’s Global Metals and Mining group, underwriter for UrAsia-Uranium One Merger $600,000 March 2008
Sergey Kurzin UrAsia shareholder $1 million March 2008
Ian Telfer** Uranium One chairman $3 million March 2008
Total $139.15 million to $146.9 million

FACT: Politifact is confusing commitments to donate with the actual dates of donations.

Politifact Claim: “Third, most of their Clinton Foundation donations occurred before and during Hillary Clinton’s 2008 presidential bid, before she could have known she would become secretary of state.”

FACT: The absurdity of this statement boggles the mind. Of course she could not know she would be Secretary of State. She was planning to be president, and her donors had the same expectation. Why these donors would be happier knowing she was Secretary of State than believing she would be president of the United States is a truly bizarre assumption. Ms. Qiu should know that while the State Department must review and sign off on any CFIUS transaction, the president has final authority.

Politifact Claim: Politifact implies that all interested parties in the deal other than Ian Telfer gave money prior to the deal in 2010: “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.”

FACT: Renaissance Capital, a company staffed by connected Russian officials, pays Bill for a speech in June 2010.

Renaissance Capital is the very definition of “involved with.” As has been repeatedly reported, Renaissance Capital was pushing Uranium One stock at the time and is closely tied to the Russian government.

Ms. Qiu never even mentions this payment despite the fact that it was reported not only by Clinton Cash but confirmed by the New York Times and the New Yorker.

Clearly, this is more than “one man involved with Uranium One.”

Politifact Claim: 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.

FACT: Ian Telfer’s donation was reported in Clinton Cash. Ms. Qiu never mentions the fact that these donations were never reported by the Clinton Foundation. An important fact, given that this story is about the possibility of quid pro quo or conflicts of interest.

Also, this shows a multi-million dollar donor to the Foundation was the head of the company that was bought by Russia. And Hillary’s State Department approved the deal without disclosing the conflict, a fact confirmed by the New York Times.

Politifact Claim: “Furthermore, the bulk of the $145 million comes from Frank Giustra, the founder of UrAsia Energy and a major Clinton Foundation donor. Guistra says he sold all of his stakes in Uranium One in the fall of 2007, ‘at least 18 months before Hillary Clinton became Secretary of State’ and three years before the Russian deal.”

FACT: Ms. Qiu takes Mr. Giustra at his word that he was no longer a shareholder after late-2007. Is he telling the truth? Who knows. But it would seem important for Ms. Qiu to point out that Mr. Giustra has not been honest when asked about the details of this story before. For example, Mr. Giustra denied to New York Times reporters that he had arranged a 2007 meeting between the senior Kazakh nuclear official and Bill Clinton. Only after being presented with a photograph of the meeting did Mr. Giustra admit his role in the meeting.

Politifact Claim: “The State Department’s principal representative on the committee, Jose Hernandez, told Time that Clinton ‘never intervened with me on any CFIUS matter.'”

FACT: Ms. Qiu and her editors are confusing Jose Hernandez with Jose Fernandez. Time Magazine also made this error, but Ms. Qiu apparently went no further than the Time Magazine reference. Had she simply gone to the State Department’s website, this error would have been avoided. Politifact did issue a correction later that Jose Fernandez should have been the name used.

Politifact is uncritically accepting this statement without any due diligence in checking the veracity of this statement. The highly-parsed construct “intervened with me” leaves a wide latitude of possible means by which Mrs. Clinton, her aides, or Clinton Foundation officials could have been involved in this matter.

Politifact Claim: “The company in question, Uranium One, does have mines, mills and tracts of land in Wyoming, Utah and other U.S. states equal to about 20 percent of U.S. uranium production capacity. It churns out a smaller portion of actual uranium produced in the United States (11 percent in 2014), according to Oilprice.com.

But that’s less cause for alarm than Trump is suggesting. For one, the United States doesn’t actually produce all that much uranium (about 2 percent in 2015) and is actually a net importer of the chemical, according to Jeffrey Lewis, a nuclear nonproliferation expert at Middlebury Institute and former director at the New America Foundation.”

FACT: This graph suggests that access to U.S. Uranium deposits didn’t matter to the Russians – and that the Kazakh mines were most important. No doubt the Kazakh mines were very important, but to dismiss Uranium One’s American assets ignores the Russian strategy.

From the introduction to the interview with Vadim Zhivov:

“Russia’s hunger for uranium is apparently insatiable. In fact, Vadim Zhivov, the director general of ARMZ Uranium Holding Company (ARMZ), AKA Atomredmetzoloto – one of the leaders in the world uranium mining industry – fears that the country might be faced by a deficit of uranium.”

Clearly, the Russians think these purchases are strategic. To the extent U.S. companies aren’t using U.S. Uranium in the world market, and the Russian state owns a major portion of that capacity that gives the Russians leverage in the world market it wouldn’t otherwise have.

[Sid Belzberg]

Re: Refutation to issues around UU1 and Clintons in Snopes and Politifact

Purported fact-checking outlet PolitiFact has run another Uranium One-Rosatom-Clinton State Department story first reported by The New York Times (NYT) and based on research from the NYT bestseller Clinton Cash. The article flat-out ignores several key facts and conflicts of interest, potentially damaging to the Democratic presidential nominee.

The most recent Uranium One fact-check article was researched by Tom Kertscher and edited by Greg Borowski. In July, PolitiFact staff writer Linda Qiu published a piece full of factual errors, glaring inaccuracies, and omissions.

The initial refutation that included the full-scale 13-point refutation of the last Politifact Uranium One piece is posted above, which the latest one references.

Kertscher’s piece, however, is more of the same sloppy script.

Several of the 13 refutation points still apply to this latest “fact-check” article, but below are two additional points that deserve attention:

1. It’s true that the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) has nine agencies that approved the sale of American uranium reserves. However, only one of those agencies, the Hillary Clinton-led State Department, employed a person whose family foundation collected $145 million from investors in the deal — an alarming conflict of interest.

2. PolitiFact says, “Given that Russia doesn’t have the licenses to export uranium outside the United States, it was likely more interested in Uranium One’s assets in Kazakhstan, the world’s largest uranium producer, our colleagues said.”

However, according to The New York Times, that is patently false.

As The New York Times reports, “The commission confirmed that Uranium One has, in fact, shipped yellow cake to Canada even though it does not have an export license.”

The Times report continues:

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.

The “no export” assurance given at the time of the Rosatom deal is not the only one that turned out to be less than it seemed. Despite pledges to the contrary, Uranium One was delisted from the Toronto Stock Exchange and taken private. As of 2013, Rosatom’s subsidiary, ARMZ, owned 100 percent of it.

[Paul Bonham]

Re: Refutation to issues around UU1 and Clintons in Snopes and Politifact

Purported fact-checking outlet PolitiFact has run another Uranium One-Rosatom-Clinton State Department story......

It all amounts to tons of innuendo, not a grain of proof.

Ask yourself: would you spend tens of millions of dollars to try and buy the approval of just ONE out of a total of NINE federal agencies who need to give approval to a deal? If you were going to do that, wouldn't you also want to try and buy approval of a few more of them? Where is the evidence of THAT?

Not exactly the sharpest knives in the drawer, are we?

You crybabies should focus your attention on current affairs, where with Trump we once again have tons of innuendo and (so far) no uncovered proof. But with Trump, the innuendo is a LOT stronger and the corruption runs a LOT deeper. Trump has 50 years of shady business dealings to lend credence to the innuendo. The swamp has been drained and refilled with smellier, dirtier water than before. Thanks for noticing!

[Sid Belzberg]

Re: Refutation to issues around UU1 and Clintons in Snopes and Politifact

Ask yourself: would you spend tens of millions of dollars to try and buy the approval of just ONE out of a total of NINE federal agencies who need to give approval to a deal? If you were going to do that, wouldn't you also want to try and buy approval of a few more of them? Where is the evidence of THAT? Not exactly the sharpest knives in the drawer, are we?

The State Department was the key dept that was needed for final approval that was under Clinton, furthermore the expectation was that Hillary would be President at the time the funds were transferred. The President has final say.
One of my colleagues knew one of the main principals involved with UUU1 and he was indeed a very very sharp knife in the drawer. I can also say unequivocally that philanthropy and altruism did not figure into the massive donations by those involved in UUU1 to the Clinton foundation. Wikileaks has proven that this is far more then innuendo as has The New York Times.The Clinton Foundation was a personal slush fund of the Clinton's as was so painfully outlined in Wikileaks where everything from Chelsea's enormous wedding bill to staff in charge of finding high priced speaking engagements for Bill Clinton was paid for.

You crybabies should focus your attention on current affairs, where with Trump we once again have tons of innuendo and (so far) no uncovered proof

On the contrary, I am delighted that Hillary did not get in. I am not crying at all. In her case and especially with the UUU1 deal it is almost all PROOF and almost zero innuendo, the opposite is true of Trump as you stated. This part of the thread was in reply to a question from Ben Daswani about why I did not want Clinton in, it was not about current affairs.

[Vlad Drkulec]

Re: Refutation to issues around UU1 and Clintons in Snopes and Politifact

Bonham is a crazy person. The notion that a Christian would want to facilitate an attack on Israel to accelerate the end times is insane as that would clearly put the Christian in the camp of the enemies of Israel who are slated for destruction. No true Christian can be against Israel. There is a large part of the Democratic party which hates Israel. I have not seen a similar current in the Republican Party. Humans cannot accelerate the end times as the date and time is preordained.

Everyone knows that Democrat lawmakers are convicted of crimes twice as often as Republicans over the course of history. Democrats and Independents are also more likely to commit crimes. The claim is that this is because Democrats tend to be poorer but this is not true as on average Democrats tend to be richer than Republicans. I guess the California and New York elites skew the results.