I think he signed that one and it was reported he talked to putting first... Or is it another bill you speak of?
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
FBI finds Russia bribed way into U.S. atomic energy; nuclear deal still went through
- Thread starter DogDude
- Start date
I think he signed that one and it was reported he talked to putting first... Or is it another bill you speak of?
The Times has nothing to do with this story. As I've said on the previous page, it's (co-)written by a pretty sketchy journalist.
bob_arctor
Tough_Smooth
Ah, yeah, he signed it--in August I want to say?, but failed to begin implementing it by the October 1st deadline.
Seriously. It's so bizarre why we allow this.
Nikodemos
Member
Yes, it's a terrible look. Way back when I was at uni, I had a course by a US professor regarding various political-judiciary issues. Some of the cases we reviewed were, stricto sensu, legal; however they were liable to create "the appearance of impropriety" which had an impact on the public opinion regarding the issue. This in turn could cause public pressure towards one side in the case.
This is all the proof we need to know its fake. Pushed by Putins bot army
bob_arctor
Tough_Smooth
Trump's going all in on Twitter, now saying the Steele Dossier was made up by Russia/Dems/FBI. Incredible. A fucking loon runs the country. I use the word "run" really fucking loosely.
kitsunelaine
Banned
I wonder how that'll play in court.
Nikodemos
Member
Some of the base facts are probably not fake, but the direction they're spun definitely is. That's the Soviet way: start from a grain of truth and spin a lie around it.
I do agree with this. The kernel started as a donation with this vast fake narrative spun from it.
Saint Gregory
Member
Surprised that Trump hasn't demanded that the DoD provide him a bot army that's ten times bigger.
kitsunelaine
Banned
How do we know that he hasn't? :3c
Saint Gregory
Member
Because #TrumpHugeHands isn't trending.
PJV3
Member
Lol, it's more like Trump has obviously farted in the lift but is trying to pin it on someone else.
I'm still not buying this story unless something concrete actually comes up beyond dodgy russians.
Weve had the Senate investigatory committee tell us that the dossiers been vetted back to like Aug. 2016 but this one Hill story is totally vindicating Trump even though it has nothing to do with the investigation into his campaign?
Mortimer Brewster
Member
Trump's knee deep in Russian shit, The Hill stories don't dispute that. All these The Hill stories show is The Clinton's and Obama might be knee deep in the shit too. Mitt Romney continues to be vindicated for his Russia comments in 2012.
PJV3
Member
Yeah, it seems pretty desperate to me, it's like they're putting 2+2 together and getting 5, I get the Russian's trying to do dodgy stuff and the government perhaps agreeing to a sale they shouldn't have.
Obama got caught on hot mic in 2012 admitting hed have more flexibility after the election - not that I think he was selling out America, but that he genuinely thought they could be reasoned with. Then Ukraine happened, and, well, the world in general ostracised them for good reason.
I mean New START was signed in 2010 and it couldve well been part of the negotiations to allow the sale. I still believe its not as nefarious as this article makes it out to be for Obama - they still prosecuted the involved parties in 2014/15. Its not like the uranium is being shipped to Russia.
Also this is confusingly written:
Then right after:
So, does he have proof they gave it to the foundation, or just one assisting it?
Nikodemos
Member
Yes, this might have been a quid pro quo which Obama considered acceptable to have START pass. He probably considered the treaty much more important than stopping a crooked business deal.
It's not "confusingly written". It's just plain made-up bullshit.
Unfortunately, for the people targeted by it, it doesn't matter, since they'll swallow it uncritically.
hendersonhank
Member
But it is just adding on to a story that was originally put out by NYT. It's a fact that the Clintons accepted millions from Russians while Hillary was Secretary of State, and then this uranium deal happened. This is obviously a far bigger deal than someone tangentially related to Trump having an email exchange with a Russian that apparently goes nowhere, for example, yet we liberals are rabid for that news while quick to dismiss this. I have to agree with the conservative lunatics that there is more proof of wrongdoing here than in any Trump/Russia stuff so far.
Byakuya769
Member
You're right, donations to a charitable organization from Russian people and then this deal happening involving different Russian people is a far bigger story than close associates of Trump exchanging emails with a hostile foreign state regarding damaging information on another U.S. citizen running for President.
sir_kevith
Member
The donations also happened years ago when we didn't know Russia's true nature. Actually we're still revealing layer upon layer of how much propaganda they're putting out now to sway public opinion. We had no idea how much they did until recently. We can only assume Russia is meddling in all ways now.
All of that propaganda wasn't trying to get Clinton elected FFS.
I mean his own son and son-in-law were in the email exchange so "tangentially related to Trump" my arse. Not that I think they ever got anywhere with it.
hendersonhank
Member
Well whenever someone connected to Trump talks to any Russian, all I ever hear is "don't you understand you idiot, all people of power or wealth or in politics or in business in Russia are connected to the Kremlin, Putin controls everything".
hendersonhank
Member
Our intelligence agenceis certainly knew "Russia's true nature". Just because it wasn't all released to the press until recently means nothing. All of the experts testifying over this Russia stuff have made it clear that this is and has been how Russia operates.
This is pure propaganda. The author has done this before; https://thinkprogress.org/washington-times-names-controversial-reporter-john-solomon-as-new-executive-editor-f508fdf106fe/amp/
theclosetfan
Member
"Obviously a far bigger deal" Oh my god. It never ends.
Hillary Clinton had minimal influence on whether or not this uranium deal happened. She was one vote on a multi-agency oversight panel and wasn't even engaged with it, a career State official was.
This was a Russian company buying a stake in a Canadian company, and the only say the U.S. had in it was whether it would affect national security regarding U.S.-based subsidiaries. No uranium gets exported from the U.S., so it wasn't a national security issue.
This is propaganda aimed at trivializing Russian ops and smearing Clinton, Obama, Comey and Mueller all at once.
Well it's huge on Fox, though there's nothing on CNN or NYT for me yet.
Nowadays Fox follows what Russia is pushing and Trump follows behind them.
Super convincing account bro.
It's sad how much traction this is going to get promoting a false narritive. The fact is that the vast majority of voters don't have the reasoning ability, reading comprehension, time, or are just flat out to intellectually lazy to properly sort through the details here.
Not that there aren't things to be concerned about, but the real concerns will be ignored.
Democrats defenitely need to do more to eleminate even the appearance of conflicts of interest, along with participating in some very common minor corruption that bites them in the ass.
Not that there aren't things to be concerned about, but the real concerns will be ignored.
Democrats defenitely need to do more to eleminate even the appearance of conflicts of interest, along with participating in some very common minor corruption that bites them in the ass.
sir_kevith
Member
Sure we know what they do but we don't always know what they did. That's where you're being misguided.
This isn't really a story until there is a case that our national security was compromised.
bob_arctor
Tough_Smooth
In his meeting with Puerto Rico's governor today, Trump called (his) Russian Collusion story a hoax and said Uranium is the real story and that the media is covering it up because "it affects people they protect."
Here is a crazy man, spouting crackpot conspiracy, on live television. The President. At a meeting with the governor of Puerto Rico, ostensibly to discuss the state of the island after the Hurricane and initial recovery.
Here is a crazy man, spouting crackpot conspiracy, on live television. The President. At a meeting with the governor of Puerto Rico, ostensibly to discuss the state of the island after the Hurricane and initial recovery.
how surprising
PJV3
Member
He's a nut, if there really was something to it he would have had it put out there instead of relying on Fox news types cobbling something together.
Can a mod update the OP with clarifications? IE: the companies had no export licenses and materials were restricted to US power plants? And that said bribery was a clandestine measure targeted at individual transport workers, not obama/Clinton officials?
If it even clarifies matters for only just 4 or 5 people, it's still worth tackling this propaganda
If it even clarifies matters for only just 4 or 5 people, it's still worth tackling this propaganda
NullPointer
Member
The Republican playbook since the Fox News era began is to perpetuate a counter-narrative. Doesn't have to be true since their base won't double check their voices of authority.
I'm sure the technique is as old as politics, but it takes a well developed and integrated noise machine to fully weaponize it.
BTW - I did some basic research on this last night (read: lots of Googling) and couldn't find much about this deal when it was first being proposed. For being a controversial deal, I only found a single article about how four Republicans considered it a breach of national security, while everybody else thought it was fine. As usual with these things I'm not even sure what the Republican base thinks the crime is here.
Of course my mom who has been talking this story up for months just distills it as a giveaway to the Russians of 20% of our Uranium. Not 'controlling interest' in 20% of our Uranium mining capacity.
KernelPanic
Member
NullPointer
Member
What a load of horseshit.
AFAIK there has been no official analysis of whether Russian operations affected the outcome. The IC did not pursue that angle at all.
hendersonhank
Member
So when NYT did their article, it was propaganda aimed at trivializing Russian ops and smearing Clinton etc?
theclosetfan
Member
Yes. It was actually part of a strategy by Steve Bannon, the Mercers, and Breitbart to plant stories in traditionally "liberal" media to give them the air of legitimacy.
https://washingtonmonthly.com/2017/08/21/how-steve-bannon-played-the-mainstream-media/