Jump to content

Other charitable contributions from Uranium buyers?


DTEJD1997
 Share

Recommended Posts

Hey all:

 

I want to leave the question of whether Hillary is guilty of money laundering/corruption/influence peddling etc...at least for now.

 

What I am interested in is what level, if any, of charitable giving has been made by the people associated with the Uranium scandal? 

 

Did they give away tens or hundreds of millions to other, unrelated charities?  Did they give money to the United Way?  Red Cross?  Orphanages, other charities?

 

If so, that would make a colorable claim that these guys were simply generous benefactors giving away their fortunes for the betterment of mankind.

 

If not, that would tend to support the claims of corruption.

 

Does anybody know anything about this?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Uranium One scandal has been thoroughly debunked 100 times over.

 

Right-wing propaganda machine resurrected the story as a Hail Mary attempt to turn the tables in the Mueller investigation. Roger Stone said as much in his recent InfoWars interview.

 

If you look closely at the facts, the so called scandal goes poof:

 

The repeated, incorrect claim that Russia obtained ‘20 percent of our uranium’

 

This is not to say that Clinton is not corrupt, but you have to look elsewhere to prove it. Uranium One isn't it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, Frank Giustra has been a pretty active philanthropist. See the Radcliffe Foundation.

 

http://radcliffefoundation.org/

 

Giustra sold his entire Uranium One stake in 2007, two years before Russians began buying shares in the company.

 

Ian Telfer was another Clinton Foundation donor involved in the Uranium One deal. He was U1 chairman at the time of the deal (so a seller, not a buyer). His philanthropic record is outlined here:

 

http://www.telfer.uottawa.ca/en/about-us/about-ian-telfer

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Uranium One scandal has been thoroughly debunked 100 times over.

 

Right-wing propaganda machine resurrected the story as a Hail Mary attempt to turn the tables in the Mueller investigation. Roger Stone said as much in his recent InfoWars interview.

 

If you look closely at the facts, the so called scandal goes poof:

 

The repeated, incorrect claim that Russia obtained ‘20 percent of our uranium’

 

This is not to say that Clinton is not corrupt, but you have to look elsewhere to prove it. Uranium One isn't it.

 

Well, you could make a colorable claim that the Uranium deal is a scandal...I'm having difficulty getting my head wrapped around the following:

 

A). Clinton is Secretary of State

 

B). Clinton family has something set up as a "charity". 

 

There have been all sorts of claims that they are squandering/wasting/misdirecting money and that it is really a front...but the effectiveness/legitimacy is outside the scope of this particular argument/line of reasoning.

 

C). Hillary was involved with government departments overseeing/in charge/involved with approval of the "uranium deal".

 

D). People involved with the "uranium deal" gave SUBSTANTIAL amounts of money to the Clinton family/charity.  Depending on what you read/believe, it was somewhere between $5 million and $50 million given.

 

+++++++++++++++++++

 

E). Clinton charity only made partial disclosures of what/how much money was given to them.

 

So the person making the argument to me is asking how a government official is allowed to have a charity that gets donations from people/organizations that have business/dealings with the USA government?  That in of itself is prima facie evidence of corruption/shady dealings.

 

Those in positions of power (and immediate family members) should not be getting money from people wanting favorable dealings with the government.

 

They posit that facts/arguments A-D are sufficient of Hillary's guilt...

 

He further goes to argue that the money NEVER should have been given and that it NEVER should have been accepted.

 

I'm trying to keep on open mind on this, but the more I read, the more screwy/weird stuff comes up.

 

It all could have been avoided if the Clintons simply said, "we appreciate the gesture, but no thanks.  It might appear inappropriate.  There are plenty of other deserving charities out there.  We don't even want the SUGGESTION that something screwy is going on...".

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There have been all sorts of claims that they are squandering/wasting/misdirecting money and that it is really a front...but the effectiveness/legitimacy is outside the scope of this particular argument/line of reasoning.

 

Then why bring it up?

 

So the person making the argument to me is asking how a government official is allowed to have a charity that gets donations from people/organizations that have business/dealings with the USA government?  That in of itself is prima facie evidence of corruption/shady dealings.

 

Those in positions of power (and immediate family members) should not be getting money from people wanting favorable dealings with the government.

Really, making those statements after voting for Donald Trump?

 

In all seriousness now. Should the US State Dep't have blocked the sale of a Canadian company because said company had a US asset that was a small part of their portfolio? If so, why?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Schwab711

Your last paragraph is why the Clinton's see so many accusations. Is there nefarious behavior? I have yet to see compelling evidence of a crime but if they were a public company id assume something ain't right.

 

However, with Uranium One, best we can tell, Hillary was not involved in decision making. That kills point C. Folks involved said as much before this was the huge scandal it is today. Without C, its just a cabinet official with a foundation.

 

Our relationship with Russia doesn't match public perception when it comes to rockets and nukes (and related supply chains). By that I mean, this deal was going to sound worse than it is because of the word uranium. NYT article below covers all these angles quite well (and details similar concerns that you have).

 

In my opinion, this deal looks like it was Russia's blessing (and help?) with upsetting Iran's nuclear progress in exchange for Kazakh uranium mines. These sketchy exchanges are foreign policy in a nutshell. Russia could never export American uranium anyway, regardless of if they owned it or not. They still can't.

 

Doesn't make it not worth scrutinizing but this is part of why intent, for example, matters for Trump or with Hillary's emails. Running a government is hard and sometimes crap happens. High ranking politican's are indeed held to slightly different legal standards or we wouldn't be able to function as the government is currently constructed, for better or worse. It's somewhat common sense (not to imply everyone or anyone should agree with the standard, just that it makes sense) and the US has arrested many politicians despite this.

 

Could there be other reasons that implicate Hillary with Uranium One? Sure, but we don't have that evidence right now. But this one doesn't really fit Hillary's MO considering she's generally a hawk, has pushed to shoot down other like deals, and we were successful stopping Iran's nuclear progress shorty after Uranium One (with stuxnet and Russia-approved sanctions).

 

Our relationship with Russia faded quickly around 2011/2012 (after the attempted "reset") so maybe this is all related. That angle has less evidence, at present, but it shows how this deal could be spun in other ways.

 

Why the Clinton's accept chartible gifts is a good question, but seems moot now. If this stuff concerns you, I assume you are scared of what Trump, his family, and his cabinet are actively doing right now? Trump's hotel, Ivanla's businesses, Jared's deals/loans with China and investments with Kremlin-connected folks, Icahn's tax credits, Ross's chairmanship of Bank of Cyprus and Kremlin-connected investments, and so on.

 

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-foundation-as-russians-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html?referer=https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/04/23/us/clinton-foundation-donations-uranium-investors.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A). Clinton is Secretary of State

 

B). Clinton family has something set up as a "charity". 

 

There have been all sorts of claims that they are squandering/wasting/misdirecting money and that it is really a front...but the effectiveness/legitimacy is outside the scope of this particular argument/line of reasoning.

 

C). Hillary was involved with government departments overseeing/in charge/involved with approval of the "uranium deal".

 

You can read more about Clinton's involvement (or lack of involvement) here:

 

The facts behind Trump’s repeated claim about Hillary Clinton’s role in the Russian uranium deal

 

Coles Notes:

 

- The Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) reviewed the deal.

- Clinton's State Department was one of nine agencies comprising CFIUS.

- The other eight agencies were Treasury, Defense, Justice, Commerce, Energy and Homeland Security, and two White House agencies.

- Treasury chairs the CFIUS, not State.

- The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) gave the final approval of the deal after CFIUS completed its review.

 

To sway the deal one way or the other, Clinton would have to strong-arm nine government agencies: 8 members of CFIUS + NRC. That's kinda hard to do without leaving a trail of evidence, don't you think? Where's that evidence? Trump administration should be able to produce it, if Clinton was personally involved in any way.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In addition to what others have been saying, I can't find any reference of when that mine was US owned. Uranium One is/was Canadian. Before them the mine was owned by Areva and EDF, both foreign (French).  It seems that until recently the US wasn't so concerned with the ownership of that mine. On top of that it's not really even a good mine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So the person making the argument to me is asking how a government official is allowed to have a charity that gets donations from people/organizations that have business/dealings with the USA government?  That in of itself is prima facie evidence of corruption/shady dealings.

 

Those in positions of power (and immediate family members) should not be getting money from people wanting favorable dealings with the government.

 

DTEJD1997, just so I understand correctly, are you really saying that you regret voting for Trump? ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Elig Left-Wing propagandist defending Clinton. What a surprise. Jail Mannafort and Trump but, not Clinton hey?

 

Then this guy called himself a Conservative in a different post  :o

 

Cardboard

 

Would it surprise you that I always vote Conservative in Canadian elections? Never voted Liberal or NDP in my entire life, and not about to start.

 

Being conservative means different things to different people. From where I sit, you are not a conservative and neither is GOP in its current form.

 

Good day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

WTF what? Where have you been???

 

That is how Conservatives are being perceived and labeled on this board and in the mainstream media. And for Elig to be calling himself a Conservative... I would really like to know which part of the platform he supports?

 

Cardboard

 

Big difference between the alt-right conservative movement we see in the U.S. and the conservative movement we see in Canada.  Forget apples to apples, it's not even apples to peaches! 

 

I voted Liberal provincially and Conservative federally, and I'm a social-liberal and fiscal-conservative.  I would never imagine in a thousand years that I would vote for the likes of Donald Trump or right-wing nutjobs like Steve Bannon! 

 

If you think those guys are conservative, then Cardboard, you would be on the very far, far right wing side of the Canadian conservative movement.  A distinct minority within the Conservative party...probably less than 10%.  The bulk of Canadian conservatives would be viewed as moderate-conservatives in the U.S. 

 

I remember when the Reform party was started, and Canadians thought they were extreme...they weren't even a smidgen of what we are witnessing in the U.S. on the alt-right side...they are truly becoming an extremist bunch, and the scary thing is a large swathe of the American population and Republican party seem ok with it!  Cheers!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I asked Elig, which part of the Conservative Party of Canada platform do you support?

 

A vague answer is this one: "I'm a social-liberal and fiscal-conservative."

 

In other words, this means that you don`t want to pay increased taxes, want the government to have a balanced budget but, want all the freebies that the government is currently providing and more.

 

This is more the: "Not in my backyard Conservative Party of Canada." or "Head in the sand Conservative Party of Canada."

 

In case you have missed it, freebies do not exist. Someone has to pay for it.

 

So while you call our American conservative friends extremists or what have you, you should be proud that the Conservative Party of Canada has elected a leader because he supported some farmers and their quotas on eggs, milk and chicken production. In effect, preventing free markets from operating and turning some farmers lucky enough to be in these markets millionaires and more from having received for free these quotas in the 60`s and 70`s while they gouge Canadian customers.

 

When you understand some of that, you realize that Mr. Trump and his opposition to NATFA is actually not that detrimental to Canada and its citizens.

 

Cardboard

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The way I look at the whole Clinton thing is that nothing will ever be proven, that is how our government works.  But the fact that the Clintons have been in government for most of their adult lives and are worth tens of millions of dollars tells me all I need to know. 

 

Harry S Truman:  "No man can get rich in politics unless he's a crook. It cannot be done"

 

 

EDIT:  I can't find a good reference for that quote, but there is this one which means/implies the same and is probably the basis for the popular misquote above:

 

  "An honest public servant can't become rich in politics."

    --Harry S. Truman (https://www.trumanlibrary.org/speaks.htm)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The way I look at the whole Clinton thing is that nothing will ever be proven, that is how our government works.  But the fact that the Clintons have been in government for most of their adult lives and are worth tens of millions of dollars tells me all I need to know. 

 

Harry S Truman:  "No man can get rich in politics unless he's a crook. It cannot be done"

 

 

EDIT:  I can't find a good reference for that quote, but there is this one which means/implies the same and is probably the basis for the popular misquote above:

 

  "An honest public servant can't become rich in politics."

    --Harry S. Truman (https://www.trumanlibrary.org/speaks.htm)

 

Two things I would like to point out is that:

 

A). I think you VASTLY underestimate the wealth that the Clintons have/control.  I have heard reports that they are worth HUNDREDS of millions. 

 

B). According to Hillary, they were FLAT BROKE when they left the Whitehouse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share



×
×
  • Create New...