Hillary's Uranium Scandal...Blood is now in the water

[carpro]

http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...-spin-machine-cant-shrug-off-uranium-scandal/


CLINTON CASH: HILLARY’S SPIN MACHINE CAN’T SHRUG OFF URANIUM SCANDAL


They should ask whether Hillary was simply asleep at the wheel or corrupt when the Uranium One deal allowing the Russians to acquire control of one-fifth of America’s uranium went through. Even the Clinton campaign has claimed, quoting an assistant secretary of state to the effect that “Mrs. Clinton never intervened with me” on any matter like this. So what exactly did Hillary do for four years to protect Americans from Kremlin encroachment into the US uranium market, as well as the Kazakh uranium market? Where was the secretary of state?

They should ask why Hillary was willing to pawn off decisions regarding America’s nuclear security to a subordinate, given the Russians’ more-than-spotty record regarding promises on such security. As The New York Times reported, it turns out that Uranium One routinely “packed [yellowcake uranium] into drums and trucked [them] off to a processing plant in Canada.” The Nuclear Regulatory Commission could only shrug and state that “‘to the best of our knowledge’ most of the uranium…was returned for use in the United States.” Most, not all. Where, exactly is the rest?

Blood is now in the water.

 

[Zaac]

http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...-spin-machine-cant-shrug-off-uranium-scandal/


CLINTON CASH: HILLARY’S SPIN MACHINE CAN’T SHRUG OFF URANIUM SCANDAL


They should ask whether Hillary was simply asleep at the wheel or corrupt when the Uranium One deal allowing the Russians to acquire control of one-fifth of America’s uranium went through. Even the Clinton campaign has claimed, quoting an assistant secretary of state to the effect that “Mrs. Clinton never intervened with me” on any matter like this. So what exactly did Hillary do for four years to protect Americans from Kremlin encroachment into the US uranium market, as well as the Kazakh uranium market? Where was the secretary of state?

They should ask why Hillary was willing to pawn off decisions regarding America’s nuclear security to a subordinate, given the Russians’ more-than-spotty record regarding promises on such security. As The New York Times reported, it turns out that Uranium One routinely “packed [yellowcake uranium] into drums and trucked [them] off to a processing plant in Canada.” The Nuclear Regulatory Commission could only shrug and state that “‘to the best of our knowledge’ most of the uranium…was returned for use in the United States.” Most, not all. Where, exactly is the rest?

Blood is now in the water.

Foolishness. If she wasn't running for President, y'all would be chumming the water around Obama and calling him all sorts of names for this.

The SOS doesn't control such matters. Take it up with the President and the DOD.

Ain't no need to get y'alls blood pressures all raised and for anymore of you to just about lose your minds trying to come up with ways to derail Hillary. At this rate, some of you are gonna have a stroke or something before the next 19 months ends in the inevitable Hillary victory and the lot of you claiming you're moving to the Caribbean.:laugh:

Your continued wickedness will give you just what is deserved.

 

[righteousdude2]

Foolishness. Your continued wickedness will give you just what is deserved.

Leave it to you to spin this back in the direction of anti-Clintonites to be spiritually evil. Have you checked your heart at the door? When you point a finger, son, you have three and the "papa"thumb pointing back at you! :thumbs: :smilewinkgrin:

 

[InTheLight]

http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...-spin-machine-cant-shrug-off-uranium-scandal/

Blood is now in the water.

It's a serious issue, for sure. The fact that the New York Times ran an investigation and several articles shows it can't be ignored.

But I don't think the Republicans know how to capitalize on the scandal. Also, is a long way to election day, the water will be clear of blood by then.

 

[Zaac]

It's a serious issue, for sure. The fact that the New York Times ran an investigation and several articles shows it can't be ignored.

But I don't think the Republicans know how to capitalize on the scandal. Also, is a long way to election day, the water will be clear of blood by then.

They can't capitalize on it because this is Hillary. She 100% took care of any possibility of something looking like she was using her position as SOS to support the interests of donors to the Clinton Foundation.

The GOP will have to try again.

 

[InTheLight]

They can't capitalize on it because this is Hillary. She 100% took care of any possibility of something looking like she was using her position as SOS to support the interests of donors to the Clinton Foundation.

So why is there a new book out alleging she did exactly that along with news reports all over the mainstream media raising the issue? What did she do to deflect criticism, besides shrugging her shoulders and saying "it's just politics."


http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/opinion/candidate-clinton-and-the-foundation.html?referrer=

 

[HankD]

For her adoring fans Hillary (like some of her predecessors) can do no wrong (evidence be danged, full speed ahead).

But the GOP had/have their own persons of adoration (e.g. RR who survived because Ollie took the fall for him).

Yes, I voted for Reagan and would do it over again.

I'm fearful Zaac is right though and she will ascend the throne.
The Hillary peccadilloes will be swept under the rug and she will be coronated.

Then 8 more years of Billary.

Though Marco could be a formidable opponent.

HankD

 

[Rippon]

Let it be known here and now. I predict, at this early date, that Hillary will not be the Democratic nominee.

And this latest revelation is just another piece of evidence against her character. The case against her legitimacy is cumulative.

 

[Revmitchell]

Hillary is not the shoe in every one thinks she is. Democrats are starting to question whether there is a better candidate. She is looking bad politically and looking foolish as well.

 

[Zaac]

So why is there a new book out alleging she did exactly that along with news reports all over the mainstream media raising the issue? What did she do to deflect criticism, besides shrugging her shoulders and saying "it's just politics."


http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/opinion/candidate-clinton-and-the-foundation.html?referrer=

I guarantee that it will be pawned off on someone else.

But at the root of the deal , you will find no illegalities as the landscape was different when this transaction was done with the approval of The US Committee on Foreign Investment, which includes the attorney general, the secretaries of the Treasury, Defense, Homeland Security, Commerce and Energy, and the secretary of state.

This is nothing more than another hit piece by Peter Schweizer. The man has connections to the Koch Brothers and Ted Cruz.

Not to mention that the Times also goes on to say that there is no proof that donations played any role in the uranium deal.

Too many holes. It won't stick.

Next scandal.

 

[Zaac]

Let it be known here and now. I predict, at this early date, that Hillary will not be the Democratic nominee.

And this latest revelation is just another piece of evidence against her character. The case against her legitimacy is cumulative.

The GOP would like to think that they could be handed such a bone. The Dems know that the GOP is scared of Hillary because they know they can't beat her.

Reservations and all, the Dems will nominate her because they know that nationally, it's a slam dunk and another 8 years in the White House, and an opportunity to appoint Supreme Court Justices.

There is nothing short of a dead body in her bed that's gonna stop the Dems from nominating her.

 

[777]

So why is there a new book out alleging she did exactly that along with news reports all over the mainstream media raising the issue? What did she do to deflect criticism, besides shrugging her shoulders and saying "it's just politics."


http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/opinion/candidate-clinton-and-the-foundation.html?referrer=

Because to the Clintons, it IS just politics. This is the way they operate but there is no way Obama himself did not know or even mastermind this deal. Hillary has stonewalled ethical charges throughout her career and that method works well for her.

This book will probably not be the 1000th cut to derail her quest for the nomination but when the NYT joins the other sharks, it doesn't bode well for her. This particular author has been big on "exposing" Beltway corruption, he's covered John Kerry and his next target is Jeb Bush. Works for me.

 

[carpro]

Foolishness. If she wasn't running for President...

Of course, but who wants a slimy, money grubbing crook like Hillary for president?

You?

 

[carpro]

It's a serious issue, for sure. The fact that the New York Times ran an investigation and several articles shows it can't be ignored.

But I don't think the Republicans know how to capitalize on the scandal. Also, is a long way to election day, the water will be clear of blood by then.

The media is not as co-operative with the Clinton's as they once were.

But democrats are just as stupid and power hungry as ever. They'll still nominate her.

No matter what.

 

[Rolfe]

It's a serious issue, for sure. The fact that the New York Times ran an investigation and several articles shows it can't be ignored.

But I don't think the Republicans know how to capitalize on the scandal. Also, is a long way to election day, the water will be clear of blood by then.

Agree with your assessment...

 

[HankD]

Every impropriety which is aimed at Billary will in all likelihood have a fall guy/gal to take the hit or a mitigating factor which will be conveniently discovered (or even invented) to cancel said explosive effect.

colossal amounts of money will be printed (oops I mean disbursed) to get Billary into the oval office.

Yes, it is within the realm of probability she may not be nominated and I would love to eat crow!

HankD

 

[Zaac]

Of course, but who wants a slimy, money grubbing crook like Hillary for president?

You?

If I had to choose between you and her, you wouldn't stand a chance. See you're the face of the GOP and that's one of the reasons the GOP candidate will be thoroughly defeated.

 

[Zaac]

The media is not as co-operative with the Clinton's as they once were.

But democrats are just as stupid and power hungry as ever. They'll still nominate her.

No matter what.

Pretty much. And the GOP will continue to throw the kitchen sink at her in hopes of stopping her.

Like Hank said, she's got an answer and a fall guy for it all. But she presents to the voters as many times better than anyone the GOP could run against her.

 

[Rolfe]

If I had to choose between you and her, you wouldn't stand a chance. See you're the face of the GOP and that's one of the reasons the GOP candidate will be thoroughly defeated.

Decided that politics does have a place on this site, eh?

 

[carpro]

But she presents to the voters as many times better than anyone the GOP could run against her.

Meaning she'll keep those checks coming. Votes bought and paid for.