User Panel
It includes nine department heads. View Quote We don't know definitively whether Secretary Clinton participated at all directly. The then-Secretary of State -- I should say Assistant Secretary of State Jose Fernando represented State on CFIUS. He says she did not, reporting that the secretary never intervened. View Quote We can’t independently verify his statement, but if true, the donation to the Clinton Foundation from confirmed Uranium One investors drops from more than $145 million to $4 million. View Quote Nice job Shep. |
|
View Quote |
|
Quoted:
Seriously, who wouldn’t pay millions and millions of dollars just to hear Willie talk? View Quote |
|
View Quote Everytime you get defensive of Hillary, you show your ass as the liberal shill everyone accuses you of being. |
|
Quoted:
Maybe I'm misremembering, but I thought you described yourself as a conservative Nevertrumper? Everytime you get defensive of Hillary, you show your ass as the liberal shill everyone accuses you of being. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Maybe I'm misremembering, but I thought you described yourself as a conservative Nevertrumper? Everytime you get defensive of Hillary, you show your ass as the liberal shill everyone accuses you of being. |
|
|
Quoted:
I consider upholding the rule of law a conservative principle. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Maybe I'm misremembering, but I thought you described yourself as a conservative Nevertrumper? Everytime you get defensive of Hillary, you show your ass as the liberal shill everyone accuses you of being. |
|
Quoted:
Here is the transcript but I'll assume it will be ignored due to the usual ad-hominems. AKA "I will not address or argue against he says because Shep is a liberal shill cuck and I refuse to listen to him." DONALD TRUMP: Hillary Clinton's State Department approved the transfer of 20 percent of America's uranium holdings to Russia. Well, nine investors in the deal funneled $145 million to the Clinton Foundation. (END VIDEO) SMITH: That statement is inaccurate in a number of ways. First, the Clinton State Department had no power to veto or approve that transaction. It could do neither. Here's how it does work. By law, when a foreign company wants to buy anything with potential national security implications, an interagency committee of the federal government must approve it. The committee was given a broad mandate under President Reagan to advise the president on foreign investment transactions. That committee is called CFIUS, or the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States. It includes nine department heads. The secretary of the treasury is the chairperson. The rest are the heads of the Departments of Justice, Homeland Security, Commerce, Defense, State, and Energy, plus the office of the U.S. Trade Representative and the Office of Science and Technology Policy. That's CFIUS. The nine department heads all approved the sale of Uranium One. It was unanimous, not a Hillary Clinton approval. We don't know definitively whether Secretary Clinton participated at all directly. The then-Secretary of State -- I should say Assistant Secretary of State Jose Fernando represented State on CFIUS. He says she did not, reporting that the secretary never intervened. Further, neither Secretary Clinton nor the committee as a whole could stop any deal of this kind. The committee members evaluate a sale of anything potentially related to national security. By law, if one member objects, the president and only the president can veto such a transaction. No committee member of the nine objected. Federal approvals were also needed. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission approved the sale on November the 24th of 2010 and in doing so, stipulated that no uranium produced may be exported. So where does the uranium go? Well, the Energy Information Administration or EIA reports that unless special permission is granted by the Department of Energy or other governmental agencies, Uranium One sells the uranium that it mines in the United States to civilian power reactors in the United States. But operators of those reactors have many other sources for their uranium. Last year, 89 percent of uranium used by power plants in the U.S. came from foreign producers, according to the EIA. Regarding the donations to the Clinton Foundation, again, the accusation is that Hillary Clinton's State Department approved the transfer of 20 percent of America's uranium holdings to Russia while nine investors in the deal funneled $145 million to the Clinton Foundation. Here, the timing is inaccurate. Most of those donations were from one man, Frank Giustra, the founder of the company in Canada. He gave $131 million to the Clinton Foundation. But Giustra says he sold his stake in the company back in 2007. That is three years before the uranium/Russia deal and a year and a half before Hillary Clinton became secretary of state. We can’t independently verify his statement, but if true, the donation to the Clinton Foundation from confirmed Uranium One investors drops from more than $145 million to $4 million. The Clinton Foundation did not disclose those donations. After a New York Times story exposed them, the foundation reported it made mistakes, saying it had disclosed donations from a Canadian charity but did not specify the names of the donors to that charity who had associations to the uranium company. Even so, the accusation is predicated on the charge that Secretary Clinton approved the sale. She did not. A committee of nine evaluated the sale, the president approved the sale, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and others had to offer permits, and none of the uranium was exported for use by the U.S. to Russia. That is Uranium One. View Quote Shamefull bit of subterfuge on the author's part. |
|
Quoted:
except for your girl, nothing compelling to even look at there. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Maybe I'm misremembering, but I thought you described yourself as a conservative Nevertrumper? Everytime you get defensive of Hillary, you show your ass as the liberal shill everyone accuses you of being. |
|
View Quote |
|
Quoted:
Maybe I'm misremembering, but I thought you described yourself as a conservative Nevertrumper? Everytime you get defensive of Hillary, you show your ass as the liberal shill everyone accuses you of being. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
<div class="quote-container"><div class="quote-style">Quoted: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DOo_oe8W0AEiWVo.jpg Everytime you get defensive of Hillary, you show your ass as the liberal shill everyone accuses you of being. Dude, you are so see-through it's amazing. How can you make a statement like that about Hillary Clinton? How is that even possible? The only people who would say something like that are those with an emotional attachment. Why don't you give up this whole act, man the fuck up, and admit what you and everyone in here already knows - that you are a liberal. Just say it and get it over with already. |
|
|
Quoted:
I'm assuming you missed my part about "investigate away". Seriously knock yourself out - give yourself all the resources Mueller has. Just don't be surprised when nothing comes up. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Maybe I'm misremembering, but I thought you described yourself as a conservative Nevertrumper? Everytime you get defensive of Hillary, you show your ass as the liberal shill everyone accuses you of being. |
|
Quoted:
I consider upholding the rule of law a conservative principle. except for your girl, nothing compelling to even look at there. I'm assuming you missed my part about "investigate away". Seriously knock yourself out - give yourself all the resources Mueller has. Just don't be surprised when nothing comes up. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
<div class="quote-container"><div class="quote-style">Quoted: <div class="quote-container"><div class="quote-style">Quoted: Maybe I'm misremembering, but I thought you described yourself as a conservative Nevertrumper? Everytime you get defensive of Hillary, you show your ass as the liberal shill everyone accuses you of being. except for your girl, nothing compelling to even look at there. I'm assuming you missed my part about "investigate away". Seriously knock yourself out - give yourself all the resources Mueller has. Just don't be surprised when nothing comes up. Just stop with the bullshit already. It's embarrassing to watch you deny who you are. Pathetic. |
|
Quoted:
I'm assuming you missed my part about "investigate away". Seriously knock yourself out - give yourself all the resources Mueller has. Just don't be surprised when nothing comes up. View Quote |
|
Quoted:
I didn't miss anything. Did you miss the part where you are posting memes trying to discredit Hillary talk? Just stop with the bullshit already. It's embarrassing to watch you deny who you are. Pathetic. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
<div class="quote-container"><div class="quote-style">Quoted: <div class="quote-container"><div class="quote-style">Quoted: Maybe I'm misremembering, but I thought you described yourself as a conservative Nevertrumper? Everytime you get defensive of Hillary, you show your ass as the liberal shill everyone accuses you of being. except for your girl, nothing compelling to even look at there. I'm assuming you missed my part about "investigate away". Seriously knock yourself out - give yourself all the resources Mueller has. Just don't be surprised when nothing comes up. Just stop with the bullshit already. It's embarrassing to watch you deny who you are. Pathetic. |
|
Quoted:
What are your feelings on how Trumps handled the media on gun control after a few mass shootings? His supreme court pick? Do you believe Hillary would have done better? View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes |
|
|
Quoted:
It sure keeps one of Hannity's interns busy making silly charts. Investigate away. I haven't seen anything compelling yet - seems hard to make a "quid pro quo" accusation when you're talking about 1/9th of the approval chain and we haven't even established that Clinton was even involved in the decision-making process at all. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Stop...too much info... Hannity broke it all down. Also alluded to Jeff Session's hesitancy on appointing a Special Prosecuter being due to the fact that he is already conducting the investigation himself. @Bullet_Sponge What is your analysis of the case being made against HRC? Investigate away. I haven't seen anything compelling yet - seems hard to make a "quid pro quo" accusation when you're talking about 1/9th of the approval chain and we haven't even established that Clinton was even involved in the decision-making process at all. Huh...... Have you tried looking with you eyes open? |
|
Quoted:
Trump did fine with your first two items. Hillary would have been awful. Why are we still talking about her over a year after the election? View Quote She was/is the head of the snake. Every time she opens her mouth, her army of worshipers in and around the government go on offense to destroy opposition. Difficult for the "rule of law conservative" to understand how one old lady has that kind of power influencing the machinations of government and the media but look at yourself, you are defending her. |
|
Quoted:
Nothing burger with a side of three indictments so far. Is it still going to be a nothingburger when charges against Flynn drop? View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I'll try and get the thread back on track: http://www.businessinsider.com/jeff-sessions-testimony-congress-trump-clinton-papadopoulos-2017-11 Sessions is testifying today in front of Congress. It seems like some of the recent public news stories have...refreshed...his memory about certain events during the campaign. He appears to be trying to walk a tight line by saying he doesn't remember much about the meeting with Papadapoulos, but he does remembers "pushing back" on suggested contact with the Russians. Kind of weird to "forget" that a meeting happened entirely, and then suddenly remember only those things that are exculpatory... The reason being is this entire investigation is a nothing burger. Is it still going to be a nothingburger when charges against Flynn drop? |
|
Quoted:
I consider upholding the rule of law a conservative principle. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Maybe I'm misremembering, but I thought you described yourself as a conservative Nevertrumper? Everytime you get defensive of Hillary, you show your ass as the liberal shill everyone accuses you of being. |
|
Quoted:
Here is the transcript but I'll assume it will be ignored due to the usual ad-hominems. AKA "I will not address or argue against he says because Shep is a liberal shill cuck and I refuse to listen to him." DONALD TRUMP: Hillary Clinton's State Department approved the transfer of 20 percent of America's uranium holdings to Russia. Well, nine investors in the deal funneled $145 million to the Clinton Foundation. (END VIDEO) SMITH: That statement is inaccurate in a number of ways. First, the Clinton State Department had no power to veto or approve that transaction. It could do neither. Here's how it does work. By law, when a foreign company wants to buy anything with potential national security implications, an interagency committee of the federal government must approve it. The committee was given a broad mandate under President Reagan to advise the president on foreign investment transactions. That committee is called CFIUS, or the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States. It includes nine department heads. The secretary of the treasury is the chairperson. The rest are the heads of the Departments of Justice, Homeland Security, Commerce, Defense, State, and Energy, plus the office of the U.S. Trade Representative and the Office of Science and Technology Policy. That's CFIUS. The nine department heads all approved the sale of Uranium One. It was unanimous, not a Hillary Clinton approval. We don't know definitively whether Secretary Clinton participated at all directly. The then-Secretary of State -- I should say Assistant Secretary of State Jose Fernando represented State on CFIUS. He says she did not, reporting that the secretary never intervened. Further, neither Secretary Clinton nor the committee as a whole could stop any deal of this kind. The committee members evaluate a sale of anything potentially related to national security. By law, if one member objects, the president and only the president can veto such a transaction. No committee member of the nine objected. Federal approvals were also needed. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission approved the sale on November the 24th of 2010 and in doing so, stipulated that no uranium produced may be exported. So where does the uranium go? Well, the Energy Information Administration or EIA reports that unless special permission is granted by the Department of Energy or other governmental agencies, Uranium One sells the uranium that it mines in the United States to civilian power reactors in the United States. But operators of those reactors have many other sources for their uranium. Last year, 89 percent of uranium used by power plants in the U.S. came from foreign producers, according to the EIA. Regarding the donations to the Clinton Foundation, again, the accusation is that Hillary Clinton's State Department approved the transfer of 20 percent of America's uranium holdings to Russia while nine investors in the deal funneled $145 million to the Clinton Foundation. Here, the timing is inaccurate. Most of those donations were from one man, Frank Giustra, the founder of the company in Canada. He gave $131 million to the Clinton Foundation. But Giustra says he sold his stake in the company back in 2007. That is three years before the uranium/Russia deal and a year and a half before Hillary Clinton became secretary of state. We can’t independently verify his statement, but if true, the donation to the Clinton Foundation from confirmed Uranium One investors drops from more than $145 million to $4 million. The Clinton Foundation did not disclose those donations. After a New York Times story exposed them, the foundation reported it made mistakes, saying it had disclosed donations from a Canadian charity but did not specify the names of the donors to that charity who had associations to the uranium company. Even so, the accusation is predicated on the charge that Secretary Clinton approved the sale. She did not. A committee of nine evaluated the sale, the president approved the sale, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and others had to offer permits, and none of the uranium was exported for use by the U.S. to Russia. That is Uranium One. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
It's likely garbage?
DONALD TRUMP: Hillary Clinton's State Department approved the transfer of 20 percent of America's uranium holdings to Russia. Well, nine investors in the deal funneled $145 million to the Clinton Foundation. (END VIDEO) SMITH: That statement is inaccurate in a number of ways. First, the Clinton State Department had no power to veto or approve that transaction. It could do neither. Here's how it does work. By law, when a foreign company wants to buy anything with potential national security implications, an interagency committee of the federal government must approve it. The committee was given a broad mandate under President Reagan to advise the president on foreign investment transactions. That committee is called CFIUS, or the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States. It includes nine department heads. The secretary of the treasury is the chairperson. The rest are the heads of the Departments of Justice, Homeland Security, Commerce, Defense, State, and Energy, plus the office of the U.S. Trade Representative and the Office of Science and Technology Policy. That's CFIUS. The nine department heads all approved the sale of Uranium One. It was unanimous, not a Hillary Clinton approval. We don't know definitively whether Secretary Clinton participated at all directly. The then-Secretary of State -- I should say Assistant Secretary of State Jose Fernando represented State on CFIUS. He says she did not, reporting that the secretary never intervened. Further, neither Secretary Clinton nor the committee as a whole could stop any deal of this kind. The committee members evaluate a sale of anything potentially related to national security. By law, if one member objects, the president and only the president can veto such a transaction. No committee member of the nine objected. Federal approvals were also needed. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission approved the sale on November the 24th of 2010 and in doing so, stipulated that no uranium produced may be exported. So where does the uranium go? Well, the Energy Information Administration or EIA reports that unless special permission is granted by the Department of Energy or other governmental agencies, Uranium One sells the uranium that it mines in the United States to civilian power reactors in the United States. But operators of those reactors have many other sources for their uranium. Last year, 89 percent of uranium used by power plants in the U.S. came from foreign producers, according to the EIA. Regarding the donations to the Clinton Foundation, again, the accusation is that Hillary Clinton's State Department approved the transfer of 20 percent of America's uranium holdings to Russia while nine investors in the deal funneled $145 million to the Clinton Foundation. Here, the timing is inaccurate. Most of those donations were from one man, Frank Giustra, the founder of the company in Canada. He gave $131 million to the Clinton Foundation. But Giustra says he sold his stake in the company back in 2007. That is three years before the uranium/Russia deal and a year and a half before Hillary Clinton became secretary of state. We can’t independently verify his statement, but if true, the donation to the Clinton Foundation from confirmed Uranium One investors drops from more than $145 million to $4 million. The Clinton Foundation did not disclose those donations. After a New York Times story exposed them, the foundation reported it made mistakes, saying it had disclosed donations from a Canadian charity but did not specify the names of the donors to that charity who had associations to the uranium company. Even so, the accusation is predicated on the charge that Secretary Clinton approved the sale. She did not. A committee of nine evaluated the sale, the president approved the sale, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and others had to offer permits, and none of the uranium was exported for use by the U.S. to Russia. That is Uranium One. And for you, Shep, nevertrumpers, and democrats to believe what they are saying is true is either naïve or biased because you/they wanted Hillary to win. News flash for you..............Swamp inhabitants FUCKING LIE and they LIE ALL THE TIME. No one........I MEAN NO ONE.........gives someone over $100 MILLION without a quid pro quo. To believe otherwise is literally the height of lunacy. The fact that your boy Shep failed to mention WHY that Uranium One executive gave her so much money should speak volumes...........but maybe not to a Hillary supporter. |
|
Quoted:
I consider upholding the rule of law a conservative principle. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Maybe I'm misremembering, but I thought you described yourself as a conservative Nevertrumper? Everytime you get defensive of Hillary, you show your ass as the liberal shill everyone accuses you of being. |
|
Quoted:
I'm assuming you missed my part about "investigate away". Seriously knock yourself out - give yourself all the resources Mueller has. Just don't be surprised when nothing comes up. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Maybe I'm misremembering, but I thought you described yourself as a conservative Nevertrumper? Everytime you get defensive of Hillary, you show your ass as the liberal shill everyone accuses you of being. |
|
Quoted:
What are your feelings on how Trumps handled the media on gun control after a few mass shootings? His supreme court pick? Do you believe Hillary would have done better? View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes |
|
Quoted:
Did you not see his anti gun writings on that other site under the bullet sponge name? View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I consider upholding the rule of law a conservative principle. |
|
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I consider upholding the rule of law a conservative principle. (It's not me but I guess it keeps the rubes entertained...) ETA: Aw beat by his partner. |
|
"Gamespot" for the Sponge..........even I have a hard time accepting that one.............oh well, what games to like the most Sponge?
|
|
|
Quoted:
I'm actually on a retro-gaming kick right now with a Raspberry Pi running RetroPie. Old school arcade games and NES / SNES glory View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
"Gamespot" for the Sponge..........even I have a hard time accepting that one.............oh well, what games to like the most Sponge? I am too old to ever get the hang of the quick action packed computer games...........the younger people are so much better than I am it is ridiculous. |
|
Quoted:
"Gamespot" for the Sponge..........even I have a hard time accepting that one.............oh well, what games to like the most Sponge? View Quote This is the only forum he uses that username. |
|
Quoted:
Oh, he's a gamer. But that is just a coincidence. That, the username, the writing style, the posting history, and the political views... all just coincidences. This is the only forum he uses that username. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
"Gamespot" for the Sponge..........even I have a hard time accepting that one.............oh well, what games to like the most Sponge? This is the only forum he uses that username. How old are you Sponge (I am 64 so OBVIOUSLY not a gamer.......not good enough. ) |
|
|
|
Quoted:
I do have to admit that the writing style is arguably similar. How old are you Sponge (I am 64 so OBVIOUSLY not a gamer.......not good enough. ) View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
"Gamespot" for the Sponge..........even I have a hard time accepting that one.............oh well, what games to like the most Sponge? This is the only forum he uses that username. How old are you Sponge (I am 64 so OBVIOUSLY not a gamer.......not good enough. ) |
|
|
|
Quoted:
We need a Flynndictment to get this thread back on track. View Quote |
|
|
Quoted:
I see your flynndictment and raise you multiple Menendez felon convictions. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes |
|
A friendly PSA (and reminder) to everyone in this thread. 1) DO NOT take disagreements or disputes from ARFCOM to other boards. Trying to "hunt down" a member based on posts on other boards - presumably in an attempt to actually identify them - and then bringing that back to ARFCOM starts to get uncomfortably close to the Arock line. Please refrain from doing so. If you want to argue with someone on ARFCOM, limit it to ARFCOM. 2) Staff have previously (in fact there used to be a tacked thread) mentioned that accusing people of being paid "shills" or political "operatives" because you do not like their opinions is not acceptable. If you do so, it WILL result in account warnings or more. If you want to post in this thread - or any other thread - please do NOT engage in such behavior. |
|
|
Quoted:
Are there circumstances when property can be searched or seized? View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
private property? not to take their side but last I checked the 4th amendment still applies, even to your political opponents. If there is a big enough news story to provide cover, just throw a National Security Letter down, as the FBI is fond of doing. Prohibit the person from talking to anyone, including their lawyer. Charge the person with 'contempt of court', drag them in front of a judge in a non-judicial hearing, convict them of the charge, deny an appeal because the was no actual "hearing" to appeal the actions of. Then seize their shit anyway because they were a pain in the ass and wanted due process followed. |
|
Quoted:
Here is the transcript but I'll assume it will be ignored due to the usual ad-hominems. AKA "I will not address or argue against he says because Shep is a liberal shill cuck and I refuse to listen to him." DONALD TRUMP: Hillary Clinton's State Department approved the transfer of 20 percent of America's uranium holdings to Russia. Well, nine investors in the deal funneled $145 million to the Clinton Foundation. (END VIDEO) SMITH: That statement is inaccurate in a number of ways. First, the Clinton State Department had no power to veto or approve that transaction. It could do neither. Here's how it does work. By law, when a foreign company wants to buy anything with potential national security implications, an interagency committee of the federal government must approve it. The committee was given a broad mandate under President Reagan to advise the president on foreign investment transactions. That committee is called CFIUS, or the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States. It includes nine department heads. The secretary of the treasury is the chairperson. The rest are the heads of the Departments of Justice, Homeland Security, Commerce, Defense, State, and Energy, plus the office of the U.S. Trade Representative and the Office of Science and Technology Policy. That's CFIUS. The nine department heads all approved the sale of Uranium One. It was unanimous, not a Hillary Clinton approval. We don't know definitively whether Secretary Clinton participated at all directly. The then-Secretary of State -- I should say Assistant Secretary of State Jose Fernando represented State on CFIUS. He says she did not, reporting that the secretary never intervened. Further, neither Secretary Clinton nor the committee as a whole could stop any deal of this kind. The committee members evaluate a sale of anything potentially related to national security. By law, if one member objects, the president and only the president can veto such a transaction. No committee member of the nine objected. Federal approvals were also needed. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission approved the sale on November the 24th of 2010 and in doing so, stipulated that no uranium produced may be exported. So where does the uranium go? Well, the Energy Information Administration or EIA reports that unless special permission is granted by the Department of Energy or other governmental agencies, Uranium One sells the uranium that it mines in the United States to civilian power reactors in the United States. But operators of those reactors have many other sources for their uranium. Last year, 89 percent of uranium used by power plants in the U.S. came from foreign producers, according to the EIA. Regarding the donations to the Clinton Foundation, again, the accusation is that Hillary Clinton's State Department approved the transfer of 20 percent of America's uranium holdings to Russia while nine investors in the deal funneled $145 million to the Clinton Foundation. Here, the timing is inaccurate. Most of those donations were from one man, Frank Giustra, the founder of the company in Canada. He gave $131 million to the Clinton Foundation. But Giustra says he sold his stake in the company back in 2007. That is three years before the uranium/Russia deal and a year and a half before Hillary Clinton became secretary of state. We can’t independently verify his statement, but if true, the donation to the Clinton Foundation from confirmed Uranium One investors drops from more than $145 million to $4 million. The Clinton Foundation did not disclose those donations. After a New York Times story exposed them, the foundation reported it made mistakes, saying it had disclosed donations from a Canadian charity but did not specify the names of the donors to that charity who had associations to the uranium company. Even so, the accusation is predicated on the charge that Secretary Clinton approved the sale. She did not. A committee of nine evaluated the sale, the president approved the sale, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and others had to offer permits, and none of the uranium was exported for use by the U.S. to Russia. That is Uranium One. View Quote Clinton took bribes to push the sale through - she sold her office the entire time she was in it. Same shit Slick Willy did as president - he used the military as pawns to get rich. He left people to die in Somalia because he couldn't make any money off of it. He cancelled the invasion of Haiti when the planes were 10 minutes out because he cut a deal that would make his foundation rich. The whole family is dirty, it's just that the Uranium One scandal is the one with the most blatant money trail. |
|
|
Quoted:
Trump did fine with your first two items. Hillary would have been awful. Why are we still talking about her over a year after the election? View Quote |
|
Quoted:
Because you Leftist Hillary voters are so butthurt you are doing everything you can to bring down Trump. You are all bent on revenge. If you guys just accepoted the loss and moved on, none of this would be an issue. It all stems from your girl and her loss. View Quote |
|
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.