• 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!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

How Trump Turned the US Foreign-Policy Consensus Upside-Down

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.

Beyond mines in Kazakhstan that are among the most lucrative in the world, the sale gave the Russians control of one-fifth of all uranium production capacity in the United States. Since uranium is considered a strategic asset, with implications for national security, the deal had to be approved by a committee composed of representatives from a number of United States government agencies. Among the agencies that eventually signed off was the State Department, then headed by Mr. Clinton’s wife, Hillary Rodham Clinton.

As the Russians gradually assumed control of Uranium One in three separate transactions from 2009 to 2013, Canadian records show, a flow of cash made its way to the Clinton Foundation. Uranium One’s chairman used his family foundation to make four donations totaling $2.35 million. Those contributions were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons, despite an agreement Mrs. Clinton had struck with the Obama White House to publicly identify all donors. Other people with ties to the company made donations as well.

And shortly after the Russians announced their intention to acquire a majority stake in Uranium One, Mr. Clinton received $500,000 for a Moscow speech from a Russian investment bank with links to the Kremlin that was promoting Uranium One stock.

View attachment 67205010
Frank Giustra, right, a mining financier, has donated $31.3 million
to the foundation run by former President Bill Clinton, left.


At the time, both Rosatom and the United States government made promises intended to ease concerns about ceding control of the company’s assets to the Russians. Those promises have been repeatedly broken, records show.


http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/u...ssed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html?_r=0

That is just another slanted hit piece take that leaves out much of the truth and adds lies like "Clinton had veto power" to spice it up even more.

But Schweizer and the Times presented no evidence that the donations influenced Clinton’s official actions.
The fact is, Clinton was one of nine voting members on the foreign investments committee,
which also includes the secretaries of the Treasury, Defense, Homeland Security, Commerce and Energy, the attorney general, and representatives from two White House offices — the United States Trade Representative and the Office of Science and Technology Policy. (Separately, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission needed to approve (and did approve) the transfer of two uranium recovery licenses as part of the sale.)

No ‘Veto Power’ for Clinton on Uranium Deal
 
All one has to ask oneself was this decision by SoS and the other members of the Committee on Foreign Investment In the United States (CFIUS). Was this decision in the best interests of the US nation and there by in the best interests of the US electorate? In this case I'd have to say no, it wasn't.



All one has to ask is did this deal "left Russia controlling a large portion of America’s strategic uranium supply" ? The answer seems to be yes to this.

Is leaving the Russians in control of large portions of the US uranium supply in the best interests of the US or its electorate? The answer to this would seem to be no.

So it's no surprise really that the electorate is pissed off at this bad deal. I'd chalk it up politicians negotiating and deciding these things.

The US has 2% of the worlds Uranium. It's really not critical, especially since the deal also stipulates that none of that Uranium is allowed to be exported (and why would they? The US imports most of its Uranium).

A bunch of government agencies had no problem with it. But you hear 'uranium/Clinton/Russia' and it sends you into fantasyland.

Again, the real issue here is Trump and his utter cluelessness about Russia, and his close ties to Putin and potential debt to Russian Oligarchs.

Maybe those tax returns aren't being released for a reason.
 
The US has 2% of the worlds Uranium. It's really not critical, especially since the deal also stipulates that none of that Uranium is allowed to be exported (and why would they? The US imports most of its Uranium).

A bunch of government agencies had no problem with it. But you hear 'uranium/Clinton/Russia' and it sends you into fantasyland.

Again, the real issue here is Trump and his utter cluelessness about Russia, and his close ties to Putin and potential debt to Russian Oligarchs.

Maybe those tax returns aren't being released for a reason.

When the Uranium One deal was approved, the geopolitical backdrop was far different from today’s. The Obama administration was seeking to “reset” strained relations with Russia. The deal was strategically important to Mr. Putin, who shortly after the Americans gave their blessing sat down for a staged interview with Rosatom’s chief executive, Sergei Kiriyenko. “Few could have imagined in the past that we would own 20 percent of U.S. reserves,” Mr. Kiriyenko told Mr. Putin.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/u...s-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html

We already knew that Hillary's 'Russian Reset' was a failure, ever since they botched the translation and had that stupid button. Things didn't get any better thereafter. Then came this ill-conceived uranium deal, and now it seems they are regretting it.

I understand that you'd much rather take in isolation Trumps misunderstanding and / or misstatement. The root of the discussion includes the Russian uranium deal, so it would be fair to include a bit of how we got here in this discussion, a context.
 
That is just another slanted hit piece take that leaves out much of the truth and adds lies like "Clinton had veto power" to spice it up even more.



No ‘Veto Power’ for Clinton on Uranium Deal

A NYT slanted hit piece??? That would a first for that direction of slant.

And the contributions to the Clinton Foundation?
And Bill's speaking fees to foreign entities with business before his wife?
You don't think Rosatom was the only one do you?

You people really need to be more alert when reading fact checkers.
In this case they used the typical trick of disproving a claim that was never made.
"... Schweizer and the Times presented no evidence that the donations influenced Clinton’s official actions."
That's because Schweizer never claimed to have such evidence.
Schweizer acknowledged that she didn't have veto power because only the President had that.

But did Hillary approve of it or not?
Did Bubba make some serious bucks on the deal?
Did Bubba already have a history of making bucks from places like Kazakhstan pushing their Uranium interests?
Yes.

On this, what Schweizer had was 2 + 2 and unbiased people know that suggests 4.
Especially when dealing with those 2 and their history.
 
A NYT slanted hit piece??? That would a first for that direction of slant.

And the contributions to the Clinton Foundation?
And Bill's speaking fees to foreign entities with business before his wife?
You don't think Rosatom was the only one do you?

You people really need to be more alert when reading fact checkers.
In this case they used the typical trick of disproving a claim that was never made.
"... Schweizer and the Times presented no evidence that the donations influenced Clinton’s official actions."
That's because Schweizer never claimed to have such evidence.
Schweizer acknowledged that she didn't have veto power because only the President had that.

But did Hillary approve of it or not?
Did Bubba make some serious bucks on the deal?
Did Bubba already have a history of making bucks from places like Kazakhstan pushing their Uranium interests?
Yes.

On this, what Schweizer had was 2 + 2 and unbiased people know that suggests 4.
Especially when dealing with those 2 and their history.

Except that Hillary could not have blocked it if she wanted to so where is the quid pro quo? The deal would have gone thru with or without the Clintons. There was none. Hilary was only one of 7 votes.
The best you can say is that the Clinton's may have misrepresented any power they had over the deal and took the money fro their charity because the givers thought they were buying her.. I'm pretty sure that is not illegal or even unsavory. Hilary got money from Wall Street and she is still going to raise their taxes and increase scrutiny if she can get it through Congress. She does not let money buy influence in my estimation. It is certainly true here. That to me is a good thing not a flaw. Taking the money for charity and doing what she wants anyway is a good way to stop the rampant bribery that pervades our system. You do know that is true, don't you?
 
Last edited:
We already knew that Hillary's 'Russian Reset' was a failure, ever since they botched the translation and had that stupid button. Things didn't get any better thereafter. Then came this ill-conceived uranium deal, and now it seems they are regretting it.

I understand that you'd much rather take in isolation Trumps misunderstanding and / or misstatement. The root of the discussion includes the Russian uranium deal, so it would be fair to include a bit of how we got here in this discussion, a context.

So the Russians control 20% of the US reserves, which amounts to about 0.4% of the worlds supply...and it's not allowed to leave the US.

If there is ever a shooting war, I think we can be pretty sure Russia won't be exporting the Uranium ore out of the country in their carry on luggage, given uranium ore is about 0.5% Uranium.

Tell me what you are outraged about again?
 
So the Russians control 20% of the US reserves, which amounts to about 0.4% of the worlds supply...and it's not allowed to leave the US.

If there is ever a shooting war, I think we can be pretty sure Russia won't be exporting the Uranium ore out of the country in their carry on luggage, given uranium ore is about 0.5% Uranium.

Tell me what you are outraged about again?

Given the such scant sources of uranium that the US has, it's the right and smart thing to give it away to the Russians? How does that make sense form the strategic perspective?

What of the part of the deal where The Clinton Foundation (i.e. Hill & Bill) gain millions as part of the deal.
Yeah, some grease to make the slow work of the CFIUS go a little faster.
 
Given the such scant sources of uranium that the US has, it's the right and smart thing to give it away to the Russians? How does that make sense form the strategic perspective?

What of the part of the deal where The Clinton Foundation (i.e. Hill & Bill) gain millions as part of the deal.
Yeah, some grease to make the slow work of the CFIUS go a little faster.

It wasn't given away.

No one else thought it was a problem.

Just another example of Hillary Derangement Syndrome.

Boo! Benghazi!
 
It wasn't given away.

No one else thought it was a problem.

Just another example of Hillary Derangement Syndrome.

Boo! Benghazi!

Again, ignoring the corruption of the Clinton Foundation and their influx of related funds. See post reply to Polgara.
 
Again, it wasn't given away.

No one else had a problem with it...except Clinton haters.

Doesn't matter whether it was given away or not, it matters if it is in the best interests of the nation and the people, a point, I notice, that you've not addressed.

How is it in the nation's best interests to turn over that much control of US uranium to the Russians.

And why was it that the Clinton Foundation's influx of large contributions of parties directly related to the Russian uranium deal anyway?
Seems to be far too much of a coincidence. Keep things moving along in the right direction for this deal's approval?
 
Doesn't matter whether it was given away or not, it matters if it is in the best interests of the nation and the people, a point, I notice, that you've not addressed.

How is it in the nation's best interests to turn over that much control of US uranium to the Russians.

And why was it that the Clinton Foundation's influx of large contributions of parties directly related to the Russian uranium deal anyway?
Seems to be far too much of a coincidence. Keep things moving along in the right direction for this deal's approval?

Again, it's not under Russian control. They can't even export it.

But it's Uranium and Russia and Clinton and OHMYGOD!'
 
Again, it's not under Russian control. They can't even export it.

But it's Uranium and Russia and Clinton and OHMYGOD!'

Ownership is control. One must ask why the Russians are so interested in this acquisition.

How is it in the nation's best interests to turn over that much control of US uranium to the Russians.

And why was it that the Clinton Foundation's influx of large contributions of parties directly related to the Russian uranium deal anyway?
Seems to be far too much of a coincidence. Keep things moving along in the right direction for this deal's approval?
 
Ownership is control. One must ask why the Russians are so interested in this acquisition.

How is it in the nation's best interests to turn over that much control of US uranium to the Russians.

And why was it that the Clinton Foundation's influx of large contributions of parties directly related to the Russian uranium deal anyway?
Seems to be far too much of a coincidence. Keep things moving along in the right direction for this deal's approval?

I understand your fear of vague generalities compounded by your irrational hatred of Clinton makes you unable to answer my question.
 
Except that Hillary could not have blocked it if she wanted to so where is the quid pro quo? The deal would have gone thru with or without the Clintons. There was none. Hilary was only one of 7 votes.
The best you can say is that the Clinton's may have misrepresented any power they had over the deal and took the money fro their charity because the givers thought they were buying her.. I'm pretty sure that is not illegal or even unsavory. Hilary got money from Wall Street and she is still going to raise their taxes and increase scrutiny if she can get it through Congress. She does not let money buy influence in my estimation. It is certainly true here. That to me is a good thing not a flaw. Taking the money for charity and doing what she wants anyway is a good way to stop the rampant bribery that pervades our system. You do know that is true, don't you?

A couple of points.
Start here ...
CFIUS is an inter-agency committee authorized to review transactions that could result in control of a U.S. business by a foreign person (“covered transactions”), in order to determine the effect of such transactions on the national security of the United States. CFIUS operates pursuant to section 721 of the Defense Production Act of 1950, as amended by the Foreign Investment and National Security Act of 2007 (FINSA) (section 721) and as implemented by Executive Order 11858, as amended, and regulations at 31 C.F.R. Part 800.
...
The guidance describes: the purpose and nature of the CFIUS process, how CFIUS analyzes whether a transaction poses national security risks, national security factors identified by FINSA, and the types of transactions that CFIUS has reviewed that have presented national security considerations.

1) As the SofS, Hillary was, among other cabinet members, a member of Obama's CFIUS.
The purpose of the CFIUS was to advise the President that, in this case, letting a foreign entity take control of a huge segment of USA uranium production was wise or foolish. In that way she and others did have veto authority.
In other words, if Hillary and the others said it was a bad idea and Obama went ahead and did it anyway it would be all on him. If she said it was a good idea then it was on her. Do you think it's safe to assume she approved of it ... because it was done. For you to suggest it's not unsavory to have a history of such quid pro quo looking actions (and she & Bill do) is unfortunate analysis. She participated in the bribery - not prevented it. You don't make many millions of dollars from speeches to entities that have given to the CF and that have business before the State Department. That's more than LOOKING unsavory.
BTW, the CF is a pass-through organization. It doesn't do charitable work. It's the middle man. It employs and has influence over a lot of people.
2) Prior to being SofS, Hillary had an entirely different attitude toward the seriousness of CFIUS responsibilities. In the Senate she at least made noises that she was a hawk. That all changed. Why would that be?
 
Ownership is control. One must ask why the Russians are so interested in this acquisition.

How is it in the nation's best interests to turn over that much control of US uranium to the Russians.

And why was it that the Clinton Foundation's influx of large contributions of parties directly related to the Russian uranium deal anyway?
Seems to be far too much of a coincidence. Keep things moving along in the right direction for this deal's approval?

What about the other 6 people who voted to allow the deal? Hillary was only one vote and had no veto power. Hillary could ot have stopped the deal if she wanted to.
 
What about the other 6 people who voted to allow the deal? Hillary was only one vote and had no veto power. Hillary could ot have stopped the deal if she wanted to.

He will argue this to the end.

As long as the topic stays away from the OP.

It might be time to stop feeding him.
 
What about the other 6 people who voted to allow the deal? Hillary was only one vote and had no veto power. Hillary could ot have stopped the deal if she wanted to.

What about all the money that the Clinton Foundation gain at the same time from the same people that were looking to get this deal?

And it gets even more interesting.[

That’s one of the many revelations from a 56-page report released late Sunday titled “From Russia with Money: Hillary Clinton, the Russian Reset, and Cronyism” by the non-partisan government watchdog group, the Government Accountability Institute (GAI). Breitbart Executive Chairman Stephen K. Bannon holds the same title in GAI and Breitbart News Senior Editor-at-Large Peter Schweizer serves as GAI’s president.
Report: Hillary Clinton’s Campaign Mgr John Podesta Sat on Board of Company that Bagged $35 Million from Putin-Connected Russian Govt Fund

All these Hillary related people making money off of this, and the Clinton Foundation as well, this all seems extremely unusual, as well as down right suspicious. Wouldn't you agree? (Oh never mind. I think I know your answer on this).
 
What about all the money that the Clinton Foundation gain at the same time from the same people that were looking to get this deal?

And it gets even more interesting.[



All these Hillary related people making money off of this, and the Clinton Foundation as well, this all seems extremely unusual, as well as down right suspicious. Wouldn't you agree? (Oh never mind. I think I know your answer on this).

Since Hillary had no real power to stop or approve the sale there can be no quid pro quo involved in those contributions. "Suspicion" is not a crime although Breitbart would like to make you think it is. After all is is "the Clintons".

PS. I find the claim that "Breitbarts GAI" is non-partisan EXTREMELY suspicious if not an outright lie. If they will lie about their affiliation what else do they lie about?
 
Last edited:
Since Hillary had no real power to stop or approve the sale there can be no quid pro quo involved in those contributions. "Suspicion" is not a crime although Breitbart would like to make you think it is. After all is is "the Clintons".

PS. I find the claim that "Breitbarts GAI" is non-partisan EXTREMELY suspicious if not an outright lie. If they will lie about their affiliation what else do they lie about?

That doesn't really alter the fact that money from the same people in the deal gave to the Clinton Foundation, nor to the Clinton campaign manager. This stinks.

What do you call it when the government makes a decision, and related people and organizations just happen to significantly financially benefit from it?
 
That doesn't really alter the fact that money from the same people in the deal gave to the Clinton Foundation, nor to the Clinton campaign manager. This stinks.

What do you call it when the government makes a decision, and related people and organizations just happen to significantly financially benefit from it?

I'de call it Dick Cheney and Haliburton :lol:
 
As I pointed out in #41, Trump couldn't find his ass with both hands and probably has no idea where Ukraine is even located.

Then we have this compounding stupidity and dishonesty...

Trump Pushed For GOP To Change Ukraine Position, Now Claims He Didn’t

It seems the bipartisan US sanctions are having a negative impact on the Russian oligarch friends of top Trump aides Paul Manafort and Carter Page.
 
I'de call it Dick Cheney and Haliburton :lol:

That's pretty good.

Check me if I'm wrong, but didn't Haliburton actually render services to the government?

I think I'd be struggling to find out what services The Clinton Foundation, or the Clinton campaign manager rendered to the government.

So I'd be inclined to call this a prime example of Crony Capitalism. Isn't that one of Hillary's talking points, ending Crony Capitalism. Kinda hard to do if you are the one that's benefiting from it, isn't it?
 
Back
Top Bottom