General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsNina Turner/Our Revolution Repeats Right Wing Uranium Spin:
Nina Turner Repeats Right Wing Spin: Russians 'Control 20 Percent Of Our Uranium Extraction!'
By Karoli Kuns
10/29/17 1:53pm
It's really bad form for someone from Our Revolution to choose to validate a groundless, factless, baseless right wing conspiracy theory by putting a lefty spin on it and tossing it into the Sunday show universe the way Nina Turner did today.
Really bad form. In the video above, Turner echoes the right-wing, but perhaps in a more careful way.
SNIP...
"I mean, the fact that a Russian company now owns 20 percent -- or controls 20 percent of our uranium extraction, and has de facto and de jure exercise. They can control whether or not it's put -- you know, extracted or not extracted," she said.
That bolded statement is no different than what the wingers are saying. Without uttering the words, Nina Turner just repeated the crux of the right-wing fever swamp's claim: That Hillary Clinton sold (or allowed to be sold) 20 PERCENT OF OUR URANIUM.
Who needs Sean Hannity when we can have Nina Turner repeat it on a national cable television Sunday show?
VIDEO AT LINK:
http://crooksandliars.com/2017/10/do-better-nina-turner-conspiracy-theories
Cary
(11,746 posts)FarPoint
(12,293 posts)No rationale plan...just fighting....
JI7
(89,241 posts)Cary
(11,746 posts)4now
(1,596 posts)I hope we wont be so stupid and gullible this time.
OnDoutside
(19,948 posts)Not.
Hekate
(90,564 posts)lunamagica
(9,967 posts)VermontKevin
(1,473 posts)I
lunamagica
(9,967 posts)by Turner's exuberance and charisma. /sarcasm
Demsrule86
(68,472 posts)she will run GOP types with her 'our revolution' are supporting the right really. And Sen. Sanders should distance himself from this group.
R B Garr
(16,950 posts)over 4 states, so its hardly a Revolution as we see just nasty lies and smears against Democrats.
Lets see Ninas taxes, too. Thom Hartmann had to register as a Foreign Agent.
ProudLib72
(17,984 posts)and specifically Turner is bad news.
Cest la vie. I guess when she starts posting at JPR all the Bernie Bros will follow her over there.
revmclaren
(2,500 posts)ProudLib72
(17,984 posts)And I had thought of that, but I was too afraid to go over there and peruse their forum looking for her.
revmclaren
(2,500 posts)ProudLib72
(17,984 posts)And her handle would have to be something related to Our Revolution. I truly believe she is just as self serving as Dotard. Remember, she was on HRC's campaign for awhile until she was offered her current job. Now she has no problem bashing HRC. What would happen if Bernie became tired of her? She owes allegiance to no one but herself. If Bernie cast her aside, Bannon would probably scoop her up.
samnsara
(17,606 posts)..we can use....
ismnotwasm
(41,967 posts)What is wrong with that woman
Wwcd
(6,288 posts)Puke
Who is she speaking for btw?
TheDebbieDee
(11,119 posts)DinahMoeHum
(21,774 posts)(snip)
Here are a couple of suggestions for Ms. Turner.
First, before going on any Sunday shows to talk about right-wing conspiracy theories, talk to your friend Joy Reid about them. She will help you debunk them in advance of you making a fool of yourself, just like she did this morning.
Here's my second piece of advice: Cure yourself of your Clinton Derangement Syndrome or else find another person to speak for Our Revolution. The one thing we DO NOT NEED on the left right now is this kind of ridiculous validation of right-wing fever dreams in the name of slapping around Hillary Clinton, which is exactly what you, Nina Turner, were doing.
Do better. Have some facts at your fingertips.
Here's another fact. Hillary Clinton isn't in office, running for office, or planning to run for office. She's a private citizen. It's bad enough the right wingers of the world are pretending she's the villain. We don't need it coming from the left, too.
(snip)
Wwcd
(6,288 posts)Usurper.
Who's paying her?
coolsandy
(479 posts)TomCADem
(17,382 posts)...while claiming to promote progressive causes:
NastyRiffraff
(12,448 posts)Forever. We don't need to hear from you ever again.
Maven
(10,533 posts)keithbvadu2
(36,673 posts)fleabiscuit
(4,542 posts)Democratic Party is a Populist-Leaning Liberal.
[link:http://www.ontheissues.org/Democratic_Party.htm|
[link:|
grantcart
(53,061 posts)They have a lot but we always manage to have a few.
peggysue2
(10,824 posts)On the money. This is where the far left joins the far right. And Bingo! We have a marriage made in hell. Or . . .
a marriage of convenience because both political positions desire to "Burn the House Down."
Not smart Ms Turner. You've outted yourself.
oasis
(49,335 posts)betsuni
(25,380 posts)JHan
(10,173 posts)this is how bullshit spreads further, dumb dumb bullshit. Thanks Nina!
Squinch
(50,919 posts)the left or Democrats. Or any revolution other than spinning stupid.
Demsrule86
(68,472 posts)I would never vote for any of their candidates who could be right wing too.
LongTomH
(8,636 posts)We endorse progressive Democratic candidates and work for them!! We have weekly phonebanking and canvassing events.
We will still be out here working for what we believe in!!!!
MrsCoffee
(5,801 posts)LongTomH
(8,636 posts)Nina Turner is only person associated with Our Revolution.
emulatorloo
(44,072 posts)So she's not just some random person, she's the official face of the Our Revolution PAC.
I hear great things about local chapters and I like the idea of Our Revolution and the work they are doing.
I feel like she says a lot of counterproductive things as president of the group but of course it's up to the national group to decide.
Thanks for the great work you're doing
Tom Rinaldo
(22,911 posts)rgbecker
(4,820 posts)That video shows Nina supporting Clinton against charges of taking 500,000 for speech's and millions for the Clinton fund. She points out that the decision required support of all nine members of the group and that Hilary wasn't involved in the decision at all. Then she wonders why the group would vote to allow Rosatom, "the Russians", to buy into a company that controls extraction of 20% of the Uranium in US.
DU goes ballistic on Nina, Our Revolution and of course Bernie Sanders because....Democrats! (I guess). Can you figure it out while I get myself a drink?
radical noodle
(7,997 posts)they cannot export it without approval, which they do not have.
JHan
(10,173 posts)The only point to make about the Uranium deal is that it's a GOP talking point: And that's it - not fussing about uranium mines or Rosatom - CFIUS said if the deal was before them today they would approve it again.
The ONLY legitimate response to any of this is to point out GOP whataboutism and their penchant for creating faux "scandals" against Democrats.
Demsrule86
(68,472 posts)plain and simple.
nycbos
(6,034 posts)LongTomH
(8,636 posts)And no, I'm not going to stick around for an endless thread, until you alert on me.
Edited to add: When you start using that phrase: "You people," you're 'othering' us. We're still part of the Democratic party.
nycbos
(6,034 posts)... if you don't agree with Sanders on 100% of the issues you aren't a "true progressive"
My point is that with "friends" like Nina Turner we don't need enemies.
TheDebbieDee
(11,119 posts)on Putin's payroll... Everyday, my dislike and distrust of Sen Sanders grows stronger!
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)Hillary Clinton writes a book dumping on Bernie, so someone who ardently supported Bernie gets ticked off and retaliates with an ill-conceived shot at Hillary.
Theory Number One is that this is evidence of Putin paying people off and is reason for "distrust of Sen Sanders".
Theory Number Two is that this is human nature.
Call me naïve and a Putin apologist if you wish, but I'm going with Occam's Razor here and picking the second alternative.
TheDebbieDee
(11,119 posts)A Russian troll or a Sen Sanders supporter would say something like this... Which are you, really? No one can tell the difference between the two anymore!
I'm not calling ANYONE a Russian troll... Calling someone who's so zealous in their defense of Sen Bernie Sanders that they would continue to attack Hillary Clinton could be a tip-off that a troll has been triggered... Hillary Clinton did not DUMP on Sen Sanders - she was simply more honest than YOU like when she mentioned that Sen Sanders campaigned in her behalf in a half-assed manner and didn't do much to unify the party - your response is evidence of that Sen Sanders did a lousy job of unifying after LOSING the nomination.
No thanks to you, I will continue to distrust Sen Sanders as Russian trolls and Sen Sanders supporters (I can't tell which are which anymore - they say the same things.). Every Clinton-attacking post like yours re-inforces my distrust in Sen Sanders, the Independent /Socialist.
R B Garr
(16,950 posts)a bit of remorse over Trump and still attacking Democrats has some other agenda.
MrsCoffee
(5,801 posts)Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)Asking for a friend.
lunamagica
(9,967 posts)Please, not everything revolves around him
lapucelle
(18,190 posts)mcar
(42,278 posts)When was that?
R B Garr
(16,950 posts)she felt about Bernies destructive and empty attacks on her.
RE: Hillarys recent book
lapucelle
(18,190 posts)on October 27, 2017, the first night of the Women's Convention:
Cosmo: You've said before that Our Revolution is more interested in endorsing candidates based on beliefs, rather than endorsing along party lines. Does that mean Our Revolution could endorse a Republican?
Nina: Our grassroots affiliate organizations nominate [candidates] up. I can give you real examples they have nominated Green Party members and we have endorsed Green Party members. But, for the sake of argument, if there is a progressive Republican out there that seeks their endorsement [from] Our Revolution, and they go through the local affiliate, there is a strong possibility that they could be endorsed.
SNIP-----------------------------------------------------
Cosmo: But it hasn't happened yet that you've endorsed a Republican?
Nina: Not yet. But listen, any day now. It could happen.
http://www.cosmopolitan.com/politics/a13107999/nina-turner-womens-convention/
brush
(53,743 posts)lapucelle
(18,190 posts)Nevernose
(13,081 posts)And was definitely not being optimistic about finding progressive Republicans.
Thats some kind of bullshit rule that only liberals have to follow Obama, Clinton, Sanders, any of them have to be open and reach out to the other side. This is clearly a standard that, say, Roy Moore doesnt have to follow.
brush
(53,743 posts)Nevernose
(13,081 posts)If you read the entire interview, it doesnt seem like shes enthusiastic about the prospect, nor does she seem optimistic about the prospects, nor are mythical progressive Republicans her focus. She didnt even bring it up.
Thats a double standard that EVERYONE on the Left faces, from Bill Clinton to Nina Turner and everyone in between. The expectation is always that liberals are Nice and focus on Outreach. When asked about Republican racists, even Hillary had to be super careful to differentiate between the truly deplorable bigots and the bigots who were just economically anxious. Hillary would have lost that question in the media no matter HOW shed answered it, because thats the media narrative of liberals.
I feel the same way about this particular question in this particular interview with Nina Turner: what was she supposed to say? Republicans can go fuck themselves? Politicians on the Left arent allowed to express that viewpoint (even without my potty mouth).
Meanwhile, right wing nut jobs in Congress can be as crazy and malicious as they want to be, and all that happens is that the Mercers funnel more money their way.
Demsrule86
(68,472 posts)Nevernose
(13,081 posts)Which is why I was careful to quantify it to just this one statement. The larger point still stands theres a bullshit double standard in place for the left versus the right.
Nina is trying to do that politician thing most of the time. Thats the ultimate origin of the progressive Republican unicorn she occasionally mentions. That politician thing requires saying ridiculous things sometimes, from all politicians. The catch, for me at least, is that I dont think shes very good at it.
I love Bernie, but Im really tepid on the whole Our Revolution thing. Supporting progressives? Perfect! Changing the party? Democracy in action! Undercutting Democrats? Yeah... they wont be seeing a dime of my money or a minute of my time. If I wanted to be in the Green Party, Id join the Greens.
Squinch
(50,919 posts)When was the last time you heard any OTHER politician on the left say they would work for the election of Republicans? If Hillary or Bill was asked if they would work to get Republicans elected, they would have had no problems saying, "Oh, hell no."
If she can't answer the most basic question that can be asked of a politician, what the hell is she doing at the head of a political organization?
This is bullshit.
Nevernose
(13,081 posts)Reaching across the aisle for policies is the whole schtick of Our Revolution. I think its a great idea in theory, but Im not the one whos going to be supporting it. I actually say more in-depth in post 73.
Secondly, youre right: shes not very good at her job.
R B Garr
(16,950 posts)Great post.
Progressive dog
(6,899 posts)to get a revolution in the world's leading democracy. Give her credit for working at it.
BainsBane
(53,016 posts)Yes, she is working hard at lying.
Atticus
(15,124 posts)commented: "Nina Turner? No thanks" and someone asked why I said that.
THIS IS WHY.
Historic NY
(37,449 posts)they are loonie moonbeam zealots
VermontKevin
(1,473 posts)iluvtennis
(19,835 posts)mcar
(42,278 posts)You are not helping your "revolution."
lapucelle
(18,190 posts)Eko
(7,246 posts)These are our "friends" who keep telling us what is wrong with our party and only if we believed like they did and let them run the party then we would start winning, and, actually they might be right. If we gave into using fear and ignorance and stupidity we might start winning more, me, I'm not at all for that no matter what happens. But ya know, TPP bad, banks bad, rich people on our side bad, and last but not least, Democratic party bad.
Madam45for2923
(7,178 posts)Eko
(7,246 posts)not only did it work, its still working. Its extremely funny that the same arguments that "true progressives" used against Clinton are now being used against her by the Republicans and Trump, no, its not, not at all funny. Go to the search bar, put in "Clinton uranium" scroll a couple of pages and there it is. Its not necessarily the subject that is the same, it is though, its the exact type of reasoning, no proof, no logic, no evidence, just pure absolute stupidity and hatred. And they are on our side? Please,,,,,,,,they are the wolf in the barn and they are hungry.
Madam45for2923
(7,178 posts)smirkymonkey
(63,221 posts)Snopes says "FALSE"
Here's a snip, not the whole article, but the most important part of it:
"The Uranium One deal was not Clintons 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 cant 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.
Despite transfer of ownership, the uranium remained in the U.S.
A key fact ignored in criticisms of Clintons supposed involvement in the deal is that the uranium was not nor could it be exported, and remained under the control of U.S.-based subsidiaries of Uranium One, according to a statement by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission:
NRCs review of the transfer of control request determined that the U.S. subsidiaries will
remain the licensees, will remain qualified to conduct the uranium recovery operations, and will continue to have the equipment, facilities, and procedures necessary to protect public health and safety and to minimize danger to life or property. The review also determined that the licensees will maintain adequate financial surety for eventual decommissioning of the sites. Neither Uranium One nor ARMZ holds an NRC export license, so no uranium produced at either facility may be exported.
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 lions share $131.3 million came from a single donor, Frank Giustra, the companys 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 companys 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. Giustras charitable endeavors with Mr. Clinton. Frank and I have been friends and business partners for almost 20 years, he said.
The timing of Telfers 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.
Foundation admits disclosure mistakes
One fault investigations into the Clinton Foundations practices did find was that not all of the donations were properly disclosed specifically, those of Uranium One Chairman Ian Telfer between 2009 and 2012. The foundation admitted this shortcoming and pledged to correct it, but as the Guardian pointed out in its May 2015 discussion of Clinton Cash, the fact that it happened is reason enough to sound alarm bells:
It is also true that large donations to the foundation from the chairman of Uranium One, Ian Telfer, at around the time of the Russian purchase of the company and while Hillary Clinton was secretary of state, were never disclosed to the public. The multimillion sums were channeled through a subsidiary of the Clinton Foundation, CGSCI, which did not reveal its individual donors.
Such awkward collisions between Bills fundraising activities and Hillarys public service have raised concerns not just among those who might be dismissed as part of a vast right-wing conspiracy.
An enormous volume of interest and speculation surrounds the workings of the Clinton Foundation, which is to be expected. Given the enormous sums of money it controls and the fact that it is run by a former U.S. president who is married to a possible future U.S. president, the foundation deserves all the scrutiny it gets, and more.
At the same time, for the sake of accuracy its crucial to differentiate between partisan accusations and what we actually know about it however little that may be.
Update
On 17 October 2017, The Hill reported obtaining evidence that Vadim Mikerin, a Russian official who oversaw the American operations of the Russian nuclear agency Rosatom, was being investigated for corruption by multiple U.S. agencies while the Uranium One deal was up for approval information that apparently was not shared with U.S. officials involved in approving the transaction. The Hill also reported receiving documents and eyewitness testimony indicating Russian nuclear officials had routed millions of dollars to the U.S. designed to benefit former President Bill Clintons charitable foundation during the time Secretary of State Hillary Clinton served on a government body that provided a favorable decision to Moscow, although no specifics about who those Russian nuclear officials were or how the money was allegedly routed to the Clinton Foundation were given. In any case, none of these revelations prove that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton participated in a quid pro quo agreement to accept payment for approval of the Uranium One deal.
Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)I tried to warn y'all about her...
Fiendish Thingy
(15,554 posts)Someone is pushing this narrative mighty hard...
Tarheel_Dem
(31,222 posts)LiberalFighter
(50,793 posts)I figured it was all about her more than the movement.
GulfCoast66
(11,949 posts)She represents a movement against we traditionally liberal folks.
uponit7771
(90,304 posts)Gothmog
(144,945 posts)Why would any democrat push this RWNJ conspiracy theory?