Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

nikibatts

(2,198 posts)
14. On this, Snopes is your friend.
Mon Mar 27, 2017, 10:26 PM
Mar 2017

"The Uranium One deal was not Clinton’s to veto or approve

Among the ways these accusations stray from the facts is in attributing a power of veto or approval to Secretary Clinton that she simply did not have. Clinton was one of nine cabinet members and department heads that sit on the CFIUS, and the secretary of the treasury is its chairperson. CFIUS members are collectively charged with evaluating the transaction for potential national security issues, then turning their findings over to the president. By law, the committee can’t veto a transaction; only the president can. According to The New York Times, Clinton may not have even directly participated in the Uranium One decision. Then-Assistant Secretary of State Jose Fernandez, whose job it was to represent the State Dept. on CFIUS, said Clinton herself “never intervened” in committee matters.

The timing of most of the donations does not match

Of the $145 million allegedly contributed to the Clinton Foundation by Uranium One investors, the lion’s share — $131.3 million — came from a single donor, Frank Giustra, the company’s founder. But Giustra sold off his entire stake in the company in 2007, three years before the Russia deal and at least 18 months before Clinton became secretary of state.

Of the remaining individuals connected with Uranium One who donated to the Clinton Foundation, only one was found to have contributed during the same time frame that the deal was taking place, according to The New York Times — Ian Telfer, the company’s chairman:

His donations through the Fernwood Foundation included $1 million reported in 2009, the year his company appealed to the American Embassy to help it keep its mines in Kazakhstan; $250,000 in 2010, the year the Russians sought majority control; as well as $600,000 in 2011 and $500,000 in 2012. Mr. Telfer said that his donations had nothing to do with his business dealings, and that he had never discussed Uranium One with Mr. or Mrs. Clinton. He said he had given the money because he wanted to support Mr. Giustra’s charitable endeavors with Mr. Clinton. “Frank and I have been friends and business partners for almost 20 years,” he said.
The timing of Telfer’s donations might be questionable if there was reason to believe that Hillary Clinton was instrumental in the approval of the deal with Russia, but all the evidence points to the contrary — that Clinton did not play a pivotal role, and, in fact, may not have played any role at all."

Extreme caution is needed randr Mar 2017 #1
Yes. Let's demand to see Podesta and Hillary's emails.....oh wait Freethinker65 Mar 2017 #2
Because Hillary didn't win using stolen data hacked from her party that you explicitly asked for Jonny Appleseed Mar 2017 #3
Just another distraction GP6971 Mar 2017 #4
this from the president of the united states. what a dipshit. spanone Mar 2017 #5
In the words of Pee Wee Herman Chasstev365 Mar 2017 #6
Your days are numbered, asswipe leftstreet Mar 2017 #7
We have stop paying attention to this f*cker's tweets FakeNoose Mar 2017 #8
We can't because 'the t(R)ump' 're-tweets' his PERSONAL twitter to Americas @potus @whitehouse Sunlei Mar 2017 #21
Because the Congress knows more about the uranium deal Ilsa Mar 2017 #9
I know USA uranium ore mines were grabbed up free by some corporation using some old 1800s law. Sunlei Mar 2017 #22
It's called projection womanofthehills Mar 2017 #10
Nuts. C_U_L8R Mar 2017 #11
what a dumbass trump is. American uranium ore is poor quality and sold as a trade item to anyone Sunlei Mar 2017 #12
I hope he never, ever, ever stops tweeting Saboburns Mar 2017 #13
+++ iluvtennis Mar 2017 #28
On this, Snopes is your friend. nikibatts Mar 2017 #14
Tomorrow's talking points on FOX, Rush and Sean Mr. Ected Mar 2017 #15
U R correct. Just another distraction to keep the Trump Davidian base occupied Elwood P Dowd Mar 2017 #24
Crooked Donny BlueStateLib Mar 2017 #16
Go To Your Room, Before Mommy Goes Out Side And Gets A Tree Switch Grassy Knoll Mar 2017 #17
Projection, projection, projection Nevernose Mar 2017 #18
Yep it's nothing more than projection. Kimchijeon Mar 2017 #20
+++ iluvtennis Mar 2017 #29
He must be feeling super screwed tonight, about to poop his Depends NightWatcher Mar 2017 #19
Hillary didn't do a pee pee tape. roamer65 Mar 2017 #23
Damn right. iluvtennis Mar 2017 #30
And they want Democrats to help him? dalton99a Mar 2017 #25
Remember Lakoff advice: State truth first (tweet goal is to distract) sharedvalues Mar 2017 #26
The way it feels to me... Grammy23 Mar 2017 #27
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Trump tweeting on Russia ...»Reply #14