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
 

VermontKevin

(1,473 posts)
Sun Oct 29, 2017, 05:41 PM Oct 2017

Nina 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

92 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Nina Turner/Our Revolution Repeats Right Wing Uranium Spin: (Original Post) VermontKevin Oct 2017 OP
This is what radical leftists do Cary Oct 2017 #1
They just need to fight.... FarPoint Oct 2017 #6
They arent left. They are just Putin trolls JI7 Oct 2017 #17
No argument here. Cary Oct 2017 #27
That is what they do 4now Oct 2017 #2
Thanks Nina !!! OnDoutside Oct 2017 #3
Well, shit Hekate Oct 2017 #4
And yet she has fans here...some even want her to run for president lunamagica Oct 2017 #5
Nina Turner for President? Who was crazy enough to think that? VermontKevin Oct 2017 #20
I can't tell you who it was (can't remember). Pehaps that poster was blinded lunamagica Oct 2017 #22
Those who support this person who does not even support Democrats but has said Demsrule86 Oct 2017 #67
All it took was crap like this for 75,000 people spread R B Garr Oct 2017 #7
I've been saying for months that Our Revolution ProudLib72 Oct 2017 #8
Who says she isn't already? revmclaren Oct 2017 #10
You're absolutely right, of course ProudLib72 Oct 2017 #12
I doubt she would use her real name. revmclaren Oct 2017 #13
She'd be one of the most obnoxious posters, though, I bet ProudLib72 Oct 2017 #15
shes not very smart i dont think.. she talks loud but doesnt say anything samnsara Oct 2017 #9
Goddamnit ismnotwasm Oct 2017 #11
Enjoy your fame Nina. Sorry you had to kick so many who let you stand on their backs along the way . Wwcd Oct 2017 #14
I would have thought Nina Turner was on her 14th minute months ago... TheDebbieDee Oct 2017 #83
Nina, you should have consulted with Joy Reid first. . . DinahMoeHum Oct 2017 #16
Nina is not the Left. That's the big reveal Wwcd Oct 2017 #18
Has she joined Ed at RT? coolsandy Oct 2017 #19
Nina Joins The Sane Progressive In Parroting Trump Talking Points from the Left... TomCADem Oct 2017 #49
Please STFU Nina NastyRiffraff Oct 2017 #21
Horseshoe Theory. nt Maven Oct 2017 #23
Yep. VermontKevin Oct 2017 #24
Horseshoe Theory - Had to look it up. Always good to learn new stuff. keithbvadu2 Oct 2017 #46
Personally I like the way ontheissues.org rolls it. fleabiscuit Oct 2017 #81
Also known as dumbass theory lol grantcart Oct 2017 #47
Correto and . . . peggysue2 Oct 2017 #61
Nina Turncoat! oasis Oct 2017 #25
Our Bullshit Revolution, more like it. betsuni Oct 2017 #26
It's just a dumb thing to say.. really Nina? really??? JHan Oct 2017 #28
What a dumbass. Really, anyone who defends her here should be booted. She has nothing to do with Squinch Oct 2017 #29
I hate Nina Turner...anti-Democratic rabble rouser...not one dime for Our revolution... Demsrule86 Oct 2017 #30
I'm a member of our local Our Revolution group. LongTomH Oct 2017 #31
Do you believe in what Nina is selling? MrsCoffee Oct 2017 #33
I haven't actually read her remarks, that's not what I'm about. LongTomH Oct 2017 #41
Well, FWIW she's the President of Our Revolution emulatorloo Oct 2017 #52
My sentinments too. n/t Tom Rinaldo Oct 2017 #56
Lot of hate tonight from DU for the left. rgbecker Oct 2017 #55
They can extract it but... radical noodle Oct 2017 #87
Nina is a politician. JHan Oct 2017 #91
She is the leader of our revolution...she is not a 'person' and the group sucks Demsrule86 Oct 2017 #68
And you people and only you people get to decide who is a progressive right. nycbos Oct 2017 #39
Where did you read that in my post? LongTomH Oct 2017 #40
There are many on the far left who seem to think if... nycbos Oct 2017 #44
My tinfoil hat is starting to tell me that Jill Stein was not the only left-leaner TheDebbieDee Oct 2017 #32
Oh, yeah, blaming Bernie makes a LOT of sense Jim Lane Oct 2017 #50
You're extremely defensive... You're the one who is ticked off tonight! TheDebbieDee Oct 2017 #58
Great post, and it is hard to tell them apart. Anyone without R B Garr Oct 2017 #80
Bingo. MrsCoffee Oct 2017 #82
Would you happen to know which bank offers the best rubles-for-dollars exchange rate? Jim Lane Oct 2017 #86
Hillary wrote a book dumping on Bernie? Seriously? He's barely mentioned in the book lunamagica Oct 2017 #59
That's the only page some people read. lapucelle Oct 2017 #90
Hillary wrote a book dumping on Bernie? mcar Oct 2017 #63
God forbid Hillary actually gets to explain her side of what R B Garr Oct 2017 #66
From Nina's groundbreaking interview with Cosmo Magazine lapucelle Oct 2017 #34
"Progressive Republican"? WTF? That's an oxymoron, moron. Nina, Nina, Nina. Sit down and shut up. brush Oct 2017 #51
I was trying to figure that out as well. lapucelle Oct 2017 #53
She was being diplomatic Nevernose Oct 2017 #57
What are you saying? It's not clear at all. brush Oct 2017 #60
She was backed into answering that question in that way Nevernose Oct 2017 #64
She has said it more than once. Demsrule86 Oct 2017 #69
Yes, she has Nevernose Oct 2017 #73
It really isn't that hard to say, "No, we don't work to get Republicans elected." See how easy? Squinch Oct 2017 #72
Two points: Nevernose Oct 2017 #76
Exactly, Squinch! She is not fooling anyone. R B Garr Oct 2017 #79
It takes a lot of lying Progressive dog Oct 2017 #35
LOL BainsBane Oct 2017 #71
A few weeks ago, a post here mentioned that she was the "featured speaker" at an event and I Atticus Oct 2017 #36
Yes! deurbano Oct 2017 #42
Her, Jill and Susan should rot Historic NY Oct 2017 #37
Enablers of Trump. VermontKevin Oct 2017 #38
She's been bitter since the primaries were over last year and the Dems had their voted in nominee. iluvtennis Oct 2017 #43
Go away Nina mcar Oct 2017 #45
Go away Nina...but first have a donut. N/T lapucelle Oct 2017 #54
... mcar Oct 2017 #62
Yup, Eko Oct 2017 #48
While our Republic & Democracy are in danger & while Donald got his short & itchy fingers on nukes Madam45for2923 Oct 2017 #65
The sad fact is that Eko Oct 2017 #75
This thread sounds related to what you are referring to: Madam45for2923 Oct 2017 #88
Snopes article on this. It's all right-wing propaganda and bullshit. smirkymonkey Oct 2017 #92
With friends like this.... Blue_Tires Oct 2017 #70
The NYT appears to be running hard with this story now as well Fiendish Thingy Oct 2017 #74
Nina Turner serves a purpose, but it's not the one we would wish. She's dead to me. n/t Tarheel_Dem Oct 2017 #77
Never liked or trusted her. LiberalFighter Oct 2017 #78
Nope! GulfCoast66 Oct 2017 #84
Russian pay off uponit7771 Oct 2017 #85
This uranium story is a RWNJ conspiracy theory Gothmog Oct 2017 #89

lunamagica

(9,967 posts)
22. I can't tell you who it was (can't remember). Pehaps that poster was blinded
Sun Oct 29, 2017, 06:28 PM
Oct 2017

by Turner's exuberance and charisma. /sarcasm

Demsrule86

(68,472 posts)
67. Those who support this person who does not even support Democrats but has said
Sun Oct 29, 2017, 09:55 PM
Oct 2017

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)
7. All it took was crap like this for 75,000 people spread
Sun Oct 29, 2017, 05:51 PM
Oct 2017

over 4 states, so it’s hardly a Revolution as we see —just nasty lies and smears against Democrats.

Let’s see Nina’s taxes, too. Thom Hartmann had to register as a Foreign Agent.

ProudLib72

(17,984 posts)
8. I've been saying for months that Our Revolution
Sun Oct 29, 2017, 05:52 PM
Oct 2017

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.

ProudLib72

(17,984 posts)
12. You're absolutely right, of course
Sun Oct 29, 2017, 05:59 PM
Oct 2017

And I had thought of that, but I was too afraid to go over there and peruse their forum looking for her.

ProudLib72

(17,984 posts)
15. She'd be one of the most obnoxious posters, though, I bet
Sun Oct 29, 2017, 06:09 PM
Oct 2017

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.

 

Wwcd

(6,288 posts)
14. Enjoy your fame Nina. Sorry you had to kick so many who let you stand on their backs along the way .
Sun Oct 29, 2017, 06:08 PM
Oct 2017

Puke

Who is she speaking for btw?

DinahMoeHum

(21,774 posts)
16. Nina, you should have consulted with Joy Reid first. . .
Sun Oct 29, 2017, 06:09 PM
Oct 2017
http://crooksandliars.com/2017/10/do-better-nina-turner-conspiracy-theories

(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)

TomCADem

(17,382 posts)
49. Nina Joins The Sane Progressive In Parroting Trump Talking Points from the Left...
Sun Oct 29, 2017, 08:32 PM
Oct 2017

...while claiming to promote progressive causes:

&list=PLs3WCRog6vhxYTudOyJ-3CLBZFCbLrZNc

peggysue2

(10,824 posts)
61. Correto and . . .
Sun Oct 29, 2017, 09:11 PM
Oct 2017

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.

JHan

(10,173 posts)
28. It's just a dumb thing to say.. really Nina? really???
Sun Oct 29, 2017, 06:49 PM
Oct 2017

this is how bullshit spreads further, dumb dumb bullshit. Thanks Nina!

Squinch

(50,919 posts)
29. What a dumbass. Really, anyone who defends her here should be booted. She has nothing to do with
Sun Oct 29, 2017, 06:57 PM
Oct 2017

the left or Democrats. Or any revolution other than spinning stupid.

Demsrule86

(68,472 posts)
30. I hate Nina Turner...anti-Democratic rabble rouser...not one dime for Our revolution...
Sun Oct 29, 2017, 07:10 PM
Oct 2017

I would never vote for any of their candidates who could be right wing too.

LongTomH

(8,636 posts)
31. I'm a member of our local Our Revolution group.
Sun Oct 29, 2017, 07:10 PM
Oct 2017

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!!!!

LongTomH

(8,636 posts)
41. I haven't actually read her remarks, that's not what I'm about.
Sun Oct 29, 2017, 07:43 PM
Oct 2017

Nina Turner is only person associated with Our Revolution.

emulatorloo

(44,072 posts)
52. Well, FWIW she's the President of Our Revolution
Sun Oct 29, 2017, 08:41 PM
Oct 2017

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

rgbecker

(4,820 posts)
55. Lot of hate tonight from DU for the left.
Sun Oct 29, 2017, 08:49 PM
Oct 2017

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?

JHan

(10,173 posts)
91. Nina is a politician.
Tue Oct 31, 2017, 07:58 PM
Oct 2017

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.

LongTomH

(8,636 posts)
40. Where did you read that in my post?
Sun Oct 29, 2017, 07:42 PM
Oct 2017

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)
44. There are many on the far left who seem to think if...
Sun Oct 29, 2017, 07:50 PM
Oct 2017

... 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)
32. My tinfoil hat is starting to tell me that Jill Stein was not the only left-leaner
Sun Oct 29, 2017, 07:17 PM
Oct 2017

on Putin's payroll... Everyday, my dislike and distrust of Sen Sanders grows stronger!

 

Jim Lane

(11,175 posts)
50. Oh, yeah, blaming Bernie makes a LOT of sense
Sun Oct 29, 2017, 08:39 PM
Oct 2017

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)
58. You're extremely defensive... You're the one who is ticked off tonight!
Sun Oct 29, 2017, 09:03 PM
Oct 2017

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)
80. Great post, and it is hard to tell them apart. Anyone without
Sun Oct 29, 2017, 10:54 PM
Oct 2017

a bit of remorse over Trump and still attacking Democrats has some other agenda.

 

Jim Lane

(11,175 posts)
86. Would you happen to know which bank offers the best rubles-for-dollars exchange rate?
Sun Oct 29, 2017, 11:59 PM
Oct 2017

Asking for a friend.

lunamagica

(9,967 posts)
59. Hillary wrote a book dumping on Bernie? Seriously? He's barely mentioned in the book
Sun Oct 29, 2017, 09:06 PM
Oct 2017

Please, not everything revolves around him

R B Garr

(16,950 posts)
66. God forbid Hillary actually gets to explain her side of what
Sun Oct 29, 2017, 09:43 PM
Oct 2017

she felt about Bernie’s destructive and empty attacks on her.

RE: Hillary’s recent book

lapucelle

(18,190 posts)
34. From Nina's groundbreaking interview with Cosmo Magazine
Sun Oct 29, 2017, 07:22 PM
Oct 2017

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)
51. "Progressive Republican"? WTF? That's an oxymoron, moron. Nina, Nina, Nina. Sit down and shut up.
Sun Oct 29, 2017, 08:39 PM
Oct 2017

Nevernose

(13,081 posts)
57. She was being diplomatic
Sun Oct 29, 2017, 09:00 PM
Oct 2017

And was definitely not being optimistic about finding “progressive Republicans.”

That’s 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 doesn’t have to follow.

Nevernose

(13,081 posts)
64. She was backed into answering that question in that way
Sun Oct 29, 2017, 09:32 PM
Oct 2017

If you read the entire interview, it doesn’t seem like she’s enthusiastic about the prospect, nor does she seem optimistic about the prospects, nor are mythical “progressive Republicans” her focus. She didn’t even bring it up.

That’s 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 she’d answered it, because that’s 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 aren’t 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.

Nevernose

(13,081 posts)
73. Yes, she has
Sun Oct 29, 2017, 10:20 PM
Oct 2017

Which is why I was careful to quantify it to just this one statement. The larger point still stands — there’s a bullshit double standard in place for the left versus the right.

Nina is trying to do that “politician” thing most of the time. That’s 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 don’t think she’s very good at it.

I love Bernie, but I’m really tepid on the whole “Our Revolution” thing. Supporting progressives? Perfect! Changing the party? Democracy in action! Undercutting Democrats? Yeah... they won’t be seeing a dime of my money or a minute of my time. If I wanted to be in the Green Party, I’d join the Greens.

Squinch

(50,919 posts)
72. It really isn't that hard to say, "No, we don't work to get Republicans elected." See how easy?
Sun Oct 29, 2017, 10:08 PM
Oct 2017

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)
76. Two points:
Sun Oct 29, 2017, 10:27 PM
Oct 2017

“Reaching across the aisle” for policies is the whole schtick of Our Revolution. I think it’s a great idea in theory, but I’m not the one who’s going to be supporting it. I actually say more in-depth in post 73.

Secondly, you’re right: she’s not very good at her job.

Progressive dog

(6,899 posts)
35. It takes a lot of lying
Sun Oct 29, 2017, 07:29 PM
Oct 2017

to get a revolution in the world's leading democracy. Give her credit for working at it.

Atticus

(15,124 posts)
36. A few weeks ago, a post here mentioned that she was the "featured speaker" at an event and I
Sun Oct 29, 2017, 07:33 PM
Oct 2017

commented: "Nina Turner? No thanks" and someone asked why I said that.

THIS IS WHY.

Eko

(7,246 posts)
48. Yup,
Sun Oct 29, 2017, 08:25 PM
Oct 2017

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)
65. While our Republic & Democracy are in danger & while Donald got his short & itchy fingers on nukes
Sun Oct 29, 2017, 09:35 PM
Oct 2017

Eko

(7,246 posts)
75. The sad fact is that
Sun Oct 29, 2017, 10:27 PM
Oct 2017

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.

 

smirkymonkey

(63,221 posts)
92. Snopes article on this. It's all right-wing propaganda and bullshit.
Tue Oct 31, 2017, 08:07 PM
Oct 2017
https://www.snopes.com/hillary-clinton-uranium-russia-deal/

Snopes says "FALSE"

Here's a snip, not the whole article, but the most important part of it:

"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.

Despite transfer of ownership, the uranium remained in the U.S.

A key fact ignored in criticisms of Clinton’s 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:

NRC’s 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 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.

Foundation admits disclosure mistakes

One fault investigations into the Clinton Foundation’s 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 Bill’s fundraising activities and Hillary’s 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 it’s 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 Clinton’s 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.

Fiendish Thingy

(15,554 posts)
74. The NYT appears to be running hard with this story now as well
Sun Oct 29, 2017, 10:21 PM
Oct 2017

Someone is pushing this narrative mighty hard...

Gothmog

(144,945 posts)
89. This uranium story is a RWNJ conspiracy theory
Mon Oct 30, 2017, 01:32 PM
Oct 2017

Why would any democrat push this RWNJ conspiracy theory?

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Nina Turner/Our Revolutio...