The answer to #1 is "No."

So I guess the other questions are moot.

---

----------------------------------
"Go yell at an M&M"

Thanks, I'll just chalk this up t #FakeNews

---

************************
#WeAreTheForge #BlackGunsMatter

"Look, will you guys at leats accept that you are a bunch of dumb asses and just trust me on this one? Please?" BarryP 7/30/2012

I hear a lot about this and have a couple of questions.

Translation:

I haven't heard anything about this but desperately need to find something to distract from the criminal indictments going on against my beloved Trump so I have a couple of questions to change the subject. ****Please look over here.****

Although Ken would be correct we did not give Russia 20% we did give Russian companies control of 20% of the US uranium. They can not export it ..all though there have been reports of them getting around export laws. Give is also the wrong word. The US Govt approved the sale of the company to Russian firms that control 20%. The reason its so controversial is it is becasue the people involved in the company ( a few have been charged) with corruption, bribery and kick backs. The criticism comes to Hilary allowing the sale as Sec of State but 9 different US agencies signed off on the deal. At the same time this was going on Bill Clinton got a really huge pay check for speaking fees in Russia and it is suspected but not proven they were kick backs for the Uranium One purchase. It is also believed but not proven that the Clinton foundation received vast amounts of money as donations from Russian companies around the same time as the Uranium One deal. The whole thing looks shady but not proven.

I missed this breaking news.

What was President Trump indited for?

You guys in Team Donkey crack me up. I'm bored here while contractors are remodeling my kitchen. Thank, keep em coming.

#WeAreAllHypocrites just some more than others. :)

---

************************
#WeAreTheForge #BlackGunsMatter

"Look, will you guys at leats accept that you are a bunch of dumb asses and just trust me on this one? Please?" BarryP 7/30/2012

Nothing to see here, Snopes shows 131 Million was given to the foundation before Hilary was even SOS.Plus the guy had relinquished his control of the company a year and a half before Clinton became SOS.

"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, accordingto The New York Times — Ian Telfer, the company’s chairman:"
See, he's just a good person, doing things for good people.

---

************************
#WeAreTheForge #BlackGunsMatter

"Look, will you guys at leats accept that you are a bunch of dumb asses and just trust me on this one? Please?" BarryP 7/30/2012

I'm bored here while contractors are remodeling my kitchen. Thank, keep em coming.

Just trying to help with what must be a pretty bad day and that's not even considering your remodeling job.

I appreciate the love and support, you're a giver. :)

---

************************
#WeAreTheForge #BlackGunsMatter

"Look, will you guys at leats accept that you are a bunch of dumb asses and just trust me on this one? Please?" BarryP 7/30/2012

To address your actual post, it appears that the answers are:

1. No. We chose not to block the sale of a portion of a company to a Russian concern, which resulted in that Russian concern owning 51% of the company, which means that the company (which appears to now have Russian, Canadian, and South African concerns, possibly others as well?) owns the rights to approximately 20% of our reserves. That's not the same thing as giving Russia 20% of our Uranium.

2. Not relevant, since the answer to 1 is no. But as to why we didn't block the sale, it would appear that the 9 person committee didn't find significant national security risk so as to recommend veto to the President, who is the only person who could have actually blocked the deal.

3. Assumes facts not in evidence, namely that "we" did get something for not blocking this deal.

4. Not sure this is relevant either, if we accept answer 1.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

5. Its called a deflection

Why would they even need to Uranium ore? Putin cancelled the Megatons to Megawatts program right before the 2016 election, so one would think they would have a surplus of weapons grade nuclear material.

It could be because uranium is worth between 20 and 30 dollars a pound. You can sell it. Bad investment though as it was worth roughly twice that 5 years ago.

---

They constantly try to escape from the darkness outside and within
Dreaming of systems so perfect that no one will need to be good T.S. Eliot

It does in fact look odd. I have no trouble looking into it more. But the facts we know right now don't add up to either of the Clintons being corrupt on this.

But those saying, 'why isn't Mueller looking into THAT?" are just daft. He already has a job. If we want the uranium deal looked into there is more than one guy in the world available to investigate things.

One does not preclude the other.

---

I'm beginning to think that we are much more fucked than I thought.

"But those saying, 'why isn't Mueller looking into THAT?" are just daft. "

They're generally referred to as "Trump's base".

What movie is that from?

Music video? Despacito?