A Justice Department inquiry launched more than two years ago to mollify conservatives clamoring for more investigations of Hillary Clinton has effectively ended with no tangible results, and current and former law enforcement officials said they never expected the effort to produce much of anything.
John Huber, the U.S. attorney in Utah, was tapped in November 2017 by then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions to look into concerns raised by President Trump and his allies in Congress that the FBI had not fully pursued cases of possible corruption at the Clinton Foundation and during Clinton’s time as secretary of state, when the U.S. government decided not to block the sale of a company called Uranium One.
As a part of his review, Huber examined documents and conferred with federal law enforcement officials in Little Rock who were handling a meandering probe into the Clinton Foundation, people familiar with the matter said. Current and former officials said that Huber has largely finished and found nothing worth pursuing — though the assignment has not formally ended and no official notice has been sent to the Justice Department or to lawmakers, these people said.
"Bottom of the Seventh"
quote
Huber’s assignment was separate from the ongoing investigation overseen by [John Durham, the U.S. Attorney for the District of Connecticut,] and Justice Department officials believe the Connecticut U.S. attorney’s work will be far more consequential. Durham is weighing whether to charge a former FBI lawyer for altering an internal email that misled other officials on a key fact related to surveillance applications to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. He is also looking into other issues surrounding FBI and CIA activities during the Russia investigation, according to people familiar with the matter.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 01-10-2020).]
I absolutely expected it, and didn't even care. I've long since given up on Democrats being held accountable for their actions. Once in a while, a low-level Democrat will be disgraced, but never the chosen elite. There is absolutely different rules for different people... always has been.
Originally posted by rinselberg: The Washington Post
quote
Originally posted by rinselberg: "Top of the First"
As a part of his review, Huber examined documents and conferred with federal law enforcement officials in Little Rock who were handling a meandering probe into the Clinton Foundation, people familiar with the matter said. Current and former officials said that Huber has largely finished and found nothing worth pursuing — though the assignment has not formally ended and no official notice has been sent to the Justice Department or to lawmakers, these people said.
quote
Originally posted by rinselberg: "Bottom of the Seventh"
The The Washington Post compared apples with oranges to get rinselberg to believe that they are they same thing.
Because we all understand its in our best interest to allow our adversary to control our resources.....
This is really the bottom line. Clinton sold us out. That fact is indisputable, as is the fact that her email server was a severe security risk.
As for now, there has been no comment from the office of Obama appointee John Huber regarding the Washington Post speculative article about his investigation into possible corruption and Russian collusion within the Clinton Foundation. There has been “no tangible results” because the investigation has not yet officially concluded. This is not yet actual news.
This kind of propaganda has been common for a while now. One rag will post speculation based on "an unnamed source, close to (the subject)", then a dozen other tabloids will immediately publish stories citing the original drivel as the source.
Suddenly, the headlines are filled with a new imaginary "bombshell".
Because we all understand its in our best interest to allow our adversary to control our resources.....
Let's set the facts straight: 1.) The plant they sold had the capacity to refine at 20% of nuclear material, but that doesn't mean that's how much they were refining. We have numerous uranium refineries currently idling. This plant was also idling. We would still have ample capacity without this plant. 2.) Clinton was one of many people who signed off on this. She had no reason to object just like the numerous other people didnt. 3.) The plant would have to sell all the material here; it's illegal for them to export nuclear material.
May be part of the reason Clinton skates on her email server issue is that conspiracy theorists keep muddying the waters with insane witch hunts. It's like a bunch of dogs that bark at literally everything; you start to tune them out.
Let's set the facts straight: 1.) The plant they sold had the capacity to refine at 20% of nuclear material, but that doesn't mean that's how much they were refining. We have numerous uranium refineries currently idling. This plant was also idling. We would still have ample capacity without this plant. 2.) Clinton was one of many people who signed off on this. She had no reason to object just like the numerous other people didnt. 3.) The plant would have to sell all the material here; it's illegal for them to export nuclear material.
May be part of the reason Clinton skates on her email server issue is that conspiracy theorists keep muddying the waters with insane witch hunts. It's like a bunch of dogs that bark at literally everything; you start to tune them out.
None of that changes the fact that Russians connected the Uranium One donated $145,000,000 to the Clinton Foundation around the same time that Obama’s Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton signed off on a deal that gave the Russians control of up to 20% of the U.S. uranium production.
We are all familiar with the phrase “quid pro quo” by now.
John Huber, the U.S. attorney in Utah, was tapped in November 2017 by then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions to look into concerns raised by President Trump and his allies in Congress that the FBI had not fully pursued cases of possible corruption at the Clinton Foundation and during Clinton’s time as secretary of state, when the U.S. government decided not to block the sale of a company called Uranium One Click to show never interviewed the whistle blower who exposed Shillary's Uranium One shenanigans.
May be part of the reason Clinton skates on her email server issue is that conspiracy theorists keep muddying the waters with insane witch hunts. It's like a bunch of dogs that bark at literally everything; you start to tune them out.
I like how liberals side step name calling.
And, your facts are subject to inquiry. Ugh, WE are the dogs?
This is why when you go on websites like ebay to buy uranium oxide, the listings (generally) specifically say exporting the ore is prohibited: https://www.ebay.com/i/1139...get=aud-622524041438la-5 95076196208&abcId=1140476&merchantid=118826505&gclid=Cj0KCQiAgebwBRDnARIsAE3eZjQ4lT7XzUA5GX0qRUQPauJU2_aZqNJEQ6KXX9zs5i3VJ4Go3_rIbMUaAsqmEALw_wcB
Approval to export Uranium (ore) has to go through numerous hurdles before it even gets to ITAR limitations. Have you ever had to navigate a TTA with the state department? I have. You have to fill out tons of paperwork and get state department approval before even sending a technical drawing that's related to national security to a foreign country, even if that country is part of the "FIVE-I's".
quote
Originally posted by williegoat:
None of that changes the fact that Russians connected the Uranium One donated $145,000,000 to the Clinton Foundation around the same time that Obama’s Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton signed off on a deal that gave the Russians control of up to 20% of the U.S. uranium production.
We are all familiar with the phrase “quid pro quo” by now.
This is flat out false. First, Clinton didn't have the authority to veto this deal! She was one of 9; ONLY the president has the authority to approve/deny it. Second, the big donor ($131MM) divested themselves from Uranium One years before the deal was even proposed. https://www.cnsnews.com/new...n-clinton-foundation
This is flat out false. First, Clinton didn't have the authority to veto this deal! She was one of 9; ONLY the president has the authority to approve/deny it. Second, the big donor ($131MM) divested themselves from Uranium One years before the deal was even proposed. https://www.cnsnews.com/new...n-clinton-foundation
Clinton signed off on the deal. That is true (not false). Giustra was connected to Uranium One as a previous investor. That is true (not false). Just what in my statement is "flat out false"?
Originally posted by RandomTask: First, Clinton didn't have the authority to veto this deal! She was one of 9; ONLY the president has the authority to approve/deny it.
She stated to the President, "I want you do me a favor though ..."
We were not energy independent when the State Dept was under Nobama. # Keystone Pipeline.
The Half Life of the Uranium One Rabbit Hole describes how long it takes for half of a Uranium One-related news report to decay from a Shiny New(s) Objet into the discredited remains of a politically-motivated Hoax, and it's even longer than the Half Life of 235U. And you can "look it up"--right here.
Uranium-235 or 235U has a half-life of 703.8 million years. The JCPOA had set strict limitations on how much 235U-enriched uranium Iran would be allowed to stockpile. The naturally occurring uranium in mined uranium ore is almost entirely (99.3 percent) 238U. Centrifuging is the simplest and most modern method for creating 235U-enriched uranium for nuclear applications, and ultimately, weapons grade uranium for nuclear weapons.Click to show
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 01-11-2020).]
Rather than just cut & paste you ought to go actually READ 10 CFR Part 110
By the way, I always find it amazing how dedicated the Cult of Clinton is to defending and excusing both of them.
I did, notably how "Source Material" ie, Uranium Oxide, is controlled by the NRC.
So I'm a cultist, eh? Even though I don't like her at all? I'm listing the facts and apparently that's excusing her.
BTW, speaking of charities, Trump was flat out caught and admitted to using his charity as his own personal piggy bank such that he's banned from ever running a charity again... Did I miss that thread?
If Iran was even the least bit serious about wanting Uranium for only peaceful electric power generation, they would be building CANDU reactors, using non-enriched uranium and heavy water as a moderator.
I did, notably how "Source Material" ie, Uranium Oxide, is controlled by the NRC.
So I'm a cultist, eh? Even though I don't like her at all? I'm listing the facts and apparently that's excusing her.
BTW, speaking of charities, Trump was flat out caught and admitted to using his charity as his own personal piggy bank such that he's banned from ever running a charity again... Did I miss that thread?
You're gonna bring something up from 15 years ago? Talk about ad hominem. When you don't want to debate, just attack the other person's character. Weak.
Again, the NRC said in their approval letter that Uranium one did not posses the ability to export material.
EDIT: and methinks you're moving the goal post. Originally you argued uranium ore was under the purview of ITAR (State Dept). While it is, before it even get's there, it's under the control of the NRC; we know this by your own admission in them listing what they claim control over, one of those being "source material", eg uranium ore. The NRC explicitly stated Uranium One did not posses the license to export.
I will even extend an olive branch, some of their ore DID find it's way out of the US to Canada under the guise that this material must be returned to the US when in fact, some of it found it's way to Europe. This still begs the question: Russia has over three times the amount of reserves of the US. https://en.wikipedia.org/wi..._by_uranium_reserves
Why do they need ours?
[This message has been edited by RandomTask (edited 01-13-2020).]
Originally posted by RandomTask: BTW, speaking of charities, Trump was flat out caught and admitted to using his charity as his own personal piggy bank such that he's banned from ever running a charity again... Did I miss that thread?
Threads, most in T/OT, are generated from news stories. By the way, the Clinton Foundation was not a charity. How did it go broke all of a sudden.
The Half Life of the Uranium One Rabbit Hole describes how long it takes for half of a Uranium One-related news report to decay from a Shiny New(s) Objet into the discredited remains of a politically-motivated Hoax, ...
Oh, you have proof it is a hoax. Why don't you show it ?
quote
Originally posted by rinselberg: The JCPOA had set strict limitations on how much 235U-enriched uranium Iran would be allowed to stockpile.
Sure it did, as verified by Iran. The JCPOA, which gave Iran permission to have nuclear weapons in 2025 was the best deal in the history of the world.
In those, they also have to list the highest compensated employees. I only checked a couple of years, but neither Hillary nor Bill are listed as compensated employees.
Second, I'm not saying Clinton is some saint. I don't like her from her personality to her being a complete sleazeball. But this whole thing of Uranium One has been debunked numerous times.
.
la-5 95076196208&abcId=1140476&merchantid=118826505&gclid=Cj0KCQiAgebwBRDnARIsAE3eZjQ4lT7XzUA5GX0qRUQPauJU2_aZqNJEQ6KXX9zs5i3VJ4Go3_rIbMUaAsqmEALw_wcB
