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
2016 Postmortem
In reply to the discussion: What a sense of entitlement - "It's my turn" [View all]FreakinDJ
(17,644 posts)63. Not "Debunked" at all and an active investigation
At the heart of the tale are several men, leaders of the Canadian mining industry, who have been major donors to the charitable endeavors of former President Bill Clinton and his family. Members of that group built, financed and eventually sold off to the Russians a company that would become known as Uranium One.
Beyond mines in Kazakhstan that are among the most lucrative in the world, the sale gave the Russians control of one-fifth of all uranium production capacity in the United States. Since uranium is considered a strategic asset, with implications for national security, the deal had to be approved by a committee composed of representatives from a number of United States government agencies. Among the agencies that eventually signed off was the State Department, then headed by Mr. Clintons wife, Hillary Rodham Clinton.
As the Russians gradually assumed control of Uranium One in three separate transactions from 2009 to 2013, Canadian records show, a flow of cash made its way to the Clinton Foundation. Uranium Ones chairman used his family foundation to make four donations totaling $2.35 million. Those contributions were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons, despite an agreement Mrs. Clinton had struck with the Obama White House to publicly identify all donors. Other people with ties to the company made donations as well.
And shortly after the Russians announced their intention to acquire a majority stake in Uranium One, Mr. Clinton received $500,000 for a Moscow speech from a Russian investment bank with links to the Kremlin that was promoting Uranium One stock.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-foundation-as-russians-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html?_r=0
Beyond mines in Kazakhstan that are among the most lucrative in the world, the sale gave the Russians control of one-fifth of all uranium production capacity in the United States. Since uranium is considered a strategic asset, with implications for national security, the deal had to be approved by a committee composed of representatives from a number of United States government agencies. Among the agencies that eventually signed off was the State Department, then headed by Mr. Clintons wife, Hillary Rodham Clinton.
As the Russians gradually assumed control of Uranium One in three separate transactions from 2009 to 2013, Canadian records show, a flow of cash made its way to the Clinton Foundation. Uranium Ones chairman used his family foundation to make four donations totaling $2.35 million. Those contributions were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons, despite an agreement Mrs. Clinton had struck with the Obama White House to publicly identify all donors. Other people with ties to the company made donations as well.
And shortly after the Russians announced their intention to acquire a majority stake in Uranium One, Mr. Clinton received $500,000 for a Moscow speech from a Russian investment bank with links to the Kremlin that was promoting Uranium One stock.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-foundation-as-russians-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html?_r=0
Integrity Matters
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
89 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Deal with it. Most people will vote for a different candidate than you, for many reasons.
boston bean
Nov 2015
#1
Your post chastising people for voting for a candidate will have absolutely ZERO effect on any
boston bean
Nov 2015
#3
Sanders is not going to get these votes until he shows that he is viable in the general election
Gothmog
Nov 2015
#88
It's Thursday. Thursday is "It's My Turn" complaining day. Wednesday is "Logo Arrow" day.
NurseJackie
Nov 2015
#8
I was wondering the same thing. The OP has the phrase in quotes. I'd like to see the actual quote.
yardwork
Nov 2015
#17
The Zeal To Elect A Female President Has Overshadowed The Good Judgement Of Many
cantbeserious
Nov 2015
#12
The poster wrote a whole dissertation for me based on not understanding a metaphor.
DemocratSinceBirth
Nov 2015
#40
You've nailed! Every HRC devotee I have encountered supports her because it is "her turn."
Buzz Clik
Nov 2015
#27
A lot of the post here on DU suggest Sanders is saying it is his turn so he can start a revolution.
Thinkingabout
Nov 2015
#30
He is saying it is time to have a revolution, that tells me if he is not elected it is time for
Thinkingabout
Nov 2015
#47
You think so? Have you heard about the allegations of corruption in her "family" foundation?
Demeter
Nov 2015
#43
Who said "it's my turn"? I keep seeing people around here claiming that's what has been said...
George II
Nov 2015
#48
The inference I make is it is okay to libel someone as long as you don't like him or her.
DemocratSinceBirth
Nov 2015
#80