• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

HUGE Blow to Uranium One Conspiracy Theory

NeverTrump

NeverTrump

Exposing GOP since 2015
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 21, 2013
Messages
25,357
Reaction score
11,557
Location
Post-Trump America
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
The informant is not credible? Who would have thought.

A former FBI informant who GOP lawmakers have claimed could implicate the Clintons in the so-called Uranium One scandal failed to produce any evidence of wrongdoing by the Clintons or anyone else during a February 7 interview with staffers of three congressional committees, Democrats on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee say in a summary of the meeting released Thursday.
Click to expand...

https://www.motherjones.com/politic...ed-talking-about-a-uranium-one-whistleblower/
 
This is just Obama's Deep State protecting the Clinton Legacy.
 
Considering how memos, summaries and leaked information is, as both Dems and Reps...I'm sure...will agree, subject to bias and spin and considering this particular summary is equally subject to bias and spin and considering the actual transcript of the closed session testimony is not available and considering that this summary was created and leaked by Dem committee members...undoubtedly against the wishes of the Rep side of the committee...I have no choice but to conclude that this summary has very low credibility.

I'll await actual facts.
 
He said that the russians bragged that clinton would influence the decision.
He also said that russia is still helping iran with with nuclear reactors.
“I was speechless and angry in October 2010 when CFIUS approved the Uranium One sale to Rosatom. I was deeply worried that TLI continued to transport sensitive uranium despite the fact that it had been compromised by the bribery scheme,” stated Campbell in his testimony to lawmakers. “I expressed these concerns repeatedly to my FBI handlers. The response I got was that “politics” was somehow involved. I remember one response I got from an agent when I asked how it was possible CFIUS would approve the Uranium One sale when the FBI could prove Rosatom was engaged in criminal conduct. His answer: “Ask your politics.”

“Putin wanted Russia to dominate the world’s uranium supply, a goal of crucial interest to the U.S. government. At the same time, the Russian companies – Rosatom and Tenex – were engaged in racketeering,” his testimony stated.
 
the GOP has had a hard on for the Clintons for over two decades; when the **** will the GOP get over this ****ing bull**** crap?
 
Huge blow? It was a laughable farce to begin with.
 
NeverTrumpGOP said:
The informant is not credible? Who would have thought.



https://www.motherjones.com/politic...ed-talking-about-a-uranium-one-whistleblower/
Click to expand...

Since when did the Republicans ever need evidence to accuse Hillary of anything? Remember, there were at least eight federal investigations of Hillary concerning Benghazi, most of which were held by the Hillary-must-die GOP-led House Benghazi Committee, and ALL of the investigations found zero wrongdoing on her part...but if you ask any faithful conservative Fox-News watcher, Hillary's guilty as sin of something Benghazi - doesn't matter what it is, doesn't matter that there's zero evidence, she must be guilty!
 
Mycroft said:
Considering how memos, summaries and leaked information is, as both Dems and Reps...I'm sure...will agree, subject to bias and spin and considering this particular summary is equally subject to bias and spin and considering the actual transcript of the closed session testimony is not available and considering that this summary was created and leaked by Dem committee members...undoubtedly against the wishes of the Rep side of the committee...I have no choice but to conclude that this summary has very low credibility.

I'll await actual facts.
Click to expand...

Are you equally skeptical of the Nunez memo?
 
Mycroft said:
Considering how memos, summaries and leaked information is, as both Dems and Reps...I'm sure...will agree, subject to bias and spin and considering this particular summary is equally subject to bias and spin and considering the actual transcript of the closed session testimony is not available and considering that this summary was created and leaked by Dem committee members...undoubtedly against the wishes of the Rep side of the committee...I have no choice but to conclude that this summary has very low credibility.

I'll await actual facts.
Click to expand...


Google "fake Russian ads" and you'll find anti-Clinton Uranium One propaganda ads. It was the Russian trolls who used that narrative that you have fallen for -- hook, line and sinker.
 
cuban smokes said:
the GOP has had a hard on for the Clintons for over two decades; when the **** will the GOP get over this ****ing bull**** crap?
Click to expand...

Hillary--a woman--pushed for universal health care. They'll never get over that.

The same people who freaked out about the first lady handling a single issue are OK with the first daughter and son-in-law being senior advisors driving policy.
 
Middleground said:
Google "fake Russian ads" and you'll find anti-Clinton Uranium One propaganda ads. It was the Russian trolls who used that narrative that you have fallen for -- hook, line and sinker.
Click to expand...

Really? What narrative have I fallen for?
 
bearpoker said:
Are you equally skeptical of the Nunez memo?
Click to expand...

Of course.

However, I have seen some of the factual data that is part of the Nunez memo. I haven't seen it for this U1 memo.
 
NeverTrumpGOP said:
The informant is not credible? Who would have thought.



https://www.motherjones.com/politic...ed-talking-about-a-uranium-one-whistleblower/
Click to expand...

Democrat committee members are not credible. Adam Schiff is a great example of this so its best to wait until all of the facts come out

Besides, there's already ample evidence that Clinton was running a pay to play scam without the over 140 million dollars donated to the Clinton foundation by people tied to the Uranium One deal....

Clinton Foundation Donors got weapons deals from Clintons State Dept
Clinton Foundation Donors Got Weapons Deals From Hillary Clinton's State Department
 
Fenton said:
Besides, there's already ample evidence that Clinton was running a pay to play scam without the over 140 million dollars donated to the Clinton foundation by people tied to the Uranium One deal....
Click to expand...

Where is the evidence that Hillary makes any money from the Clinton Foundation?

Let's say you run a charity for children with cancer. I donate to your charity. Would this be considered a bribe?

The answer is no because you don't profit from your charity. There's no real incentive for corruption.

Now if these donors were giving Hillary's private business loans, (like Kushner's scandal) that's incentive for corruption.
 
Mycroft said:
Of course.

However, I have seen some of the factual data that is part of the Nunez memo. I haven't seen it for this U1 memo.
Click to expand...

Cherry picked facts. You haven't been allowed to read the rebuttal.
 
SonOfDaedalus said:
Where is the evidence that Hillary makes any money from the Clinton Foundation?

Let's say you run a charity for children with cancer. I donate to your charity. Would this be considered a bribe?

The answer is no because you don't profit from your charity. There's no real incentive for corruption.

Now if these donors were giving Hillary's private business loans, (like Kushner's scandal) that's incentive for corruption.
Click to expand...
Exactly. Their argument seems to be that if i donate money in your name to a charity that then helps people, that is me trying to bribe you. It makes no sense unless they can find a way that the clintons actually took money from the foundation. And they cant.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk
 
Mycroft said:
Really? What narrative have I fallen for?
Click to expand...

The fake Russian ads the trolls used against Hillary. Most likely where Nunes and his guys read about the "story" as well.
 
roughdraft274 said:
Exactly. Their argument seems to be that if i donate money in your name to a charity that then helps people, that is me trying to bribe you. It makes no sense unless they can find a way that the clintons actually took money from the foundation. And they cant.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Unless you're the now shuttered Trump Foundation.
 
Mycroft said:
Considering how memos, summaries and leaked information is, as both Dems and Reps...I'm sure...will agree, subject to bias and spin and considering this particular summary is equally subject to bias and spin and considering the actual transcript of the closed session testimony is not available and considering that this summary was created and leaked by Dem committee members...undoubtedly against the wishes of the Rep side of the committee...I have no choice but to conclude that this summary has very low credibility.

I'll await actual facts.
Click to expand...

The fact is that there is zero credible evidence, none, nada, that supports the asshat Uranium One conspiracy theory, nor have you or anyone else produced any, nor can you.
 
vesper said:
And your proof is this witness is not credible are the Democrats on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee published in wait for it......... Mother freakin Jones!
:giggling:
:2funny:
:2rofll:
:lamo:
Click to expand...

You can't dispute the facts so...wait for it... you impugn in your bumbling manner the link where they're hosted.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom