Could you explain how that would work? As in - how does CFIUS prevent the sale of a foreign-owned company? One more chance to do more than pump your stump.
FBI investigating Clinton Foundation
- Thread starter ihhawk
- Start date
It's not even speculation. CFIUS does not have the power to prevent the sale of a foreign owned company. Period. All they can do is place caveats on the sale as it impacts the US. They DID require that all US management remain in place and that the US mines could not be issued export licenses. The most extreme step they could have taken would be to require that UO sell off it's US holdings. That's it. While it's remotely possible that Russia would have backed out of the sale w/o the inclusion of the US mines, it's hardly plausible. They wanted Kazakhstani uranium. They would have gotten it regardless of what CFIUS did.
Here's the best part - requiring the divestment of the US properties can be done RETROACTIVELY. It could be required RIGHT NOW if it was truly a problem. It would involve some major unwinding of the financials but if this was the national security threat the right claims...why isn't it being done?
It doesn't even rise to the level of speculation, just the crazed ramblings of an old right wing Clinton hater.
Nah. You guys are on a roll. Don't want to get in your way, and whatever I say is irrelevant to you, anyway. Enjoy.
Uh huh. You’re asked to defend a claim and you run and hide. Maybe you should stick to the poop threads.
You do have a gift for irrelevance, as well as willful ignorance.
I do sympathize, though. You Trump lovers are desperate to throw some kind of harpoon into Hilary so as to deflect attention from the Mueller investigation. The Uranium One deal seems like your last, best hope as long as you ignore the facts. One fact is, the Russian company doesn't give a rat's ass about the US uranium mines. They already sell large amounts of uranium to US power plants, by some accounts over 50% of all uranium purchased in the US.
This from factcheck.org:
"U.S. owners and operators of commercial nuclear reactors purchase the vast majority of their uranium from foreign sources. Only 11 percent of the 50.6 million pounds purchased in 2016 came from U.S. domestic producers, according to the EIA."
This IS a poop thread.
But I haven't gone anywhere. I'm right here, munching popcorn and enjoying the show.
What a fascinating thread. I almost envy LC's delusion, it probably makes for a comfortable state of mind.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ercent-of-our-uranium/?utm_term=.4a41b0c45707
The link is an excellent and informative article in re the insignificance of uranium production by Uranium One's US holdings. Of course our local right wing nut bags (like LC) will not read it because Hey! left wing liberal media. That's OK. I put it out there for those few folks here who like to be informed.
The link is an excellent and informative article in re the insignificance of uranium production by Uranium One's US holdings. Of course our local right wing nut bags (like LC) will not read it because Hey! left wing liberal media. That's OK. I put it out there for those few folks here who like to be informed.
OMG @Lone Clone:
Uranium One has already sold some U.S. assets and may be looking to unload more, an industry official said. That’s because the U.S. holdings were incidental to the Rosatom purchase of Uranium One; it was more interested in the company’s holdings in Kazakhstan, the world’s leading uranium producer.
Done being a dumbass, yet?
Are your panties unbunched yet? If so, I will put down my popcorn and make a comment or three.
1. In my first post, I made it abundantly clear I was playing devil's advocate. Aware of the way some of you blithely ignore anything that might derail your preconceived responses, two posts later I re-emphasized this, warning not to forget "the role I am playing here." I assumed you would ignore it, and you did, but nonetheless, facts are facts. And I give you credit for being intelligent enough to understand the role of a devil's advocate.
2. The point of concern about the deal was not the change of company ownership. It was the effect on control of U.S. uranium assets. That's why it was subject to review. That's why people were concerned. You have -- as is your wont -- endeavored to make the issue something other than what it was/is. If not for the uranium deposits in the U.S., nobody would have given much of a rat's ass who owned Uranium One.
3. The committee always has operated by unanimous consent and the president has always followed its recommendations. It is technically possible that things would have proceeded if one of the members had objected, but highly unlikely. Ergo, I have concluded that Hillary could have blocked approval. This is a matter of opinion, as there is no way to know. I could be wrong. So could those who think otherwise.
4. I also have concluded that the reason for all the money pouring into the Clinton Foundation and directly into Bill Clinton's pocket was to curry favor with the Clintons in the expectation of getting something in return. I think anyone with even a vestigial brain would come to the same conclusion. Whether the strategy worked or not is another question entirely.
5. There is another issue we haven't really addressed here, but which is among the reasons members of Congress want to look further into the deal: why the FBI apparently didn't mention to anybody in Congress or the administration that a criminal investigation involving kickbacks and bribes was in progress. This doesn't bear on the Clinton angle, because the point of the concern is that Clinton, as well as the other committee members, should have been told of the investigation while they were considering the transaction.
LOL...dancin' like St. Vitus. You made a claim in that very same post:
That wasn't playing "devil's advocate". You stated that as factual. Your claim is untrue...still. It was explained to you WHY it was untrue. Yet, here you are still trying to defend it.
I've asked repeatedly for you to explain how a United States Secretary of Anything could prevent the sale of a Canadian company. Still waiting. You've now got independent corroboration that the Russians were interested in the Kazahk uranium and didn't care about the US holdings. They would have been fine with CFIUS requiring that the US uranium interests be divested...which is ALL CLINTON COULD REQUIRE. So WTF was the "bribe" for?
As a "devil's advocate" you should recognize when a talking point is no longer viable. You there yet or are you going to retreat to your popcorn?
Because we aren't naive and do go to more than the biased msm for our information.
LOL...so you just make shit up. Got it.
@Foxclone - gonna give you the benefit of the doubt. Walk us through the Uranium One deal step-by-step and point out how it indicates anything nefarious. Educate.
Last edited:
No cigar, Tar. You're continuing to flail. You are "still waiting" -- in italics, no less -- for the answer to a question that isn't to the point.
Just admit you went wacko again when you saw a trigger word and regurgitated positions that didn't address the point. Admit you didn't even see the two references to devil's advocate. Admit you are trying to divert attention from the control of U.S. uranium to Kazahk uranium. Admit that if there were nothing the committee/president could do about the transaction, there would have been no review because there would have been no point.
In other words, return to reality.
How does it fit into this that the donations to the foundation tied to the uranium deal came from a man who had already divested himself
of the uranium holdings? Why would he make a donation when he stood to gain nothing financially?
YOU made the point.
But it's also true she could have scuttled the deal by herself. Maybe $1.5 million was "donated" to make sure that didn't happen.
That's a direct quote. You've defended that point even after it was demonstrated that it was BS. Now you want to shift the discussion because you recognize that your point was BS? If it's no longer important, just concede that Clinton couldn't have "scuttled the deal by herself" and, in truth, couldn't have "scuttled the deal" at all. Are you ready to do that?
On those specific donations and this specific deal, I have no idea. If I gave the impression that I did, that was a mistake on my part. I'm linking a New York Times piece -- not sure if this is the one dismissed as Russian propaganda by another poster or not -- that provides a lot of background for making assumptions. Those assumptions are going to depend in large part on how high an option of the Clintons one has.
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/...s-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html.
JFC, of course she could have scuttled the deal -- assuming the deal is what mattered, i.e., the control of U.S. uranium deposits. Are you ready to concede she could have done that?
It wouldn't matter. Even IF Giustra stood to profit, all Clinton could do was force the sale of the US holdings to someone other than Russia. They still get sold. Uranium One still gets sold to Russia. Uranium One in it's entirety STILL gets sold. The claim is that she was bribed to make something happen that was going to happen no matter what she did. Smart bribe, huh?
How? You've been asked how she could have blocked the sale of a Canadian company and you have yet to respond. How?
You aren't even reading my posts.
JFC, of course she could have scuttled the deal -- assuming the deal is what mattered, i.e., the control of U.S. uranium deposits
Tar, under a white flag, explain something to me. This isn't a trick question. I originally and routinely wrote about nixing the deal because every piece I read, whether from a pro-Hillary or an anti-Hillary source, said approval was required. If those pieces weren't referring to the overall deal, what were they referring to?
Even the piece you posted only talks in terms of the US holdings.The article is about Russia getting control of 20% of US uranium (which is inaccurate). That's all we have control of. Do you have ANYTHING that indicates otherwise? Can you point to a single instance where CFIUS met to approve or deny the sale of a FOREIGN company that had no US interests?
Could she have prevented the US part of the sale? Probably - as could ANY OTHER MEMBER OF CFIUS...or the NRC...or POTUS.
So...she was bribed to prevent the US assets from being sold off in a divestment...so Uranium One could be sold off in it's entirety...so the US assets could be...divested?
That would seem to indicate that she was the only member of CFIUS who would have proposed divestment of US assets and somehow the donors didn't want that. Is that the claim now?
Here's one for you, LC.:
§ 800.601 Finality of actions under section 721.
(a) All authority available to the President or the Committee under section 721(d), including divestment authority, shall remain available at the discretion of the President with respect to covered transactions proposed or pending on or after August 23, 1988.
Has the Trump admin said anything about unwinding the transaction as allowed by law?
§ 800.601 Finality of actions under section 721.
(a) All authority available to the President or the Committee under section 721(d), including divestment authority, shall remain available at the discretion of the President with respect to covered transactions proposed or pending on or after August 23, 1988.
Has the Trump admin said anything about unwinding the transaction as allowed by law?
The 20% figure has been updated; it presumably was accurate when it was first put forward, as the source was the NRC.
The reason I asked the question is that the references in all the pieces I've seen are pretty unambiguous: They simply say that because of the U.S. interests, approval was required. I agree the U.S. has no say in whether one foreign company buys another foreign company if no U.S. assets are involved, and I was sloppy in my references to "the deal." I thought it was obvious we were talking about the control of U.S. uranium deposits.
Yes, ANY OTHER MEMBER could have prevented the U.S. part of the same -- which is what I've been saying over and over and over again, that in practice, they all had to sign off on it. The reason we are talking only about Hillary is that she's the only one associated with massive financial contributions from the parties to the deal.
The suspicion -- which I am relaying, not necessarily supporting -- obviously is that she was bribed to allow Russians to get control of U.S. uranium assets. I thought that's what all the uproar is about.
I have no idea. I would imagine that since this hasn't been mentioned by critics, there is a reason it isn't a viable alternative. If it were, they'd be hounding Trump to do it, the way he's undoing a lot of other things that happened under Obama.
I think there would be considerable support for that compromise....if you mean "mob" rule rather than "mod" rule.
And it's been demonstrated that this would have been a colossal waste of good bribe money.
The critics don't give a flip about Uranium One. They're not wasting another Clinton-Bludgeon on Trump.
So we got Russian $$$ and gave nothing in return. Sounds good to me.
