Goodbye Bob Mueller

georgephillip · Oct 20, 2017

Arkady said:
What crimes, specifically, do you think the Clintons should die for?

"Bill Clinton’s Act of Terrorism"

https://www.jacobinmag.com/2016/10/bill-clinton-al-shifa-sudan-bombing-khartoum/

"Before fourteen cruise missiles turned it into a heap of twisted steel and medical detritus, the Al Shifa factory in Khartoum was the largest manufacturer of medicines in all of Sudan, producing over half of the country’s pharmaceutical products and specializing in anti-malaria drugs.

"But on August 20, 1998, the plant was 'pulverized,' reduced to nothing but 'broken concrete and iron bars,' leaving 'thousands of brown bottles of veterinary and other medicines' littered across the sand.

"Fourteen years later, its wreckage remained, a shrine to an incident that locals still refer to as a terrorist attack."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/hillary-clinton-regrets-her-iraq-vote-but-opting-for-intervention-was-a-pattern/2016/09/15/760c23d0-6645-11e6-96c0-37533479f3f5_story.html?utm_term=.5ef6e3ef43dd

"Hillary Clinton regrets her Iraq vote. But opting for intervention was a pattern."

"It was hours before Sen. Hillary Clinton would vote in 2002 on whether to give President George W. Bush the authority to go to war with Iraq. She had been advised by her husband and many close associates to vote yes. Now, at the last minute, she met with a group of church leaders, joining hands in silent prayer, insisting that she remained undecided."

There are some "mistakes" that are impossible to correct, and both Clintons have consistently supported actions responsible for the deaths of thousands of innocent, poor human beings.

Hmmmm · Oct 20, 2017

Days said:
... Russia just happened to work a deal to obtain a shitboat load of highly enriched uranium from the Clinton's

There never was a deal with Russia to obtain ANY enriched uranium ore (other than a tiny forensic sample not related to the deal) let alone a shitload of it. It was an economic arrangement where Russians got ownership of a company but no control over actual uranium shipments out of the country. Also, it wasn't a deal with the Clinton's. It was a deal approved by Obama upon recommendation from the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States and there is no evidence that Hillary was involved in the recommendation by the committee.

"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" -
https://www.snopes.com/hillary-clinton-uranium-russia-deal/

Uranium SAMPLE that was given to the Russians
https://www.snopes.com/hillary-clinton-robert-mueller-uranium/

marvin martian · Oct 20, 2017

Hmmmm said:
There never was a deal with Russia to obtain ANY enriched uranium ore (other than a tiny forensic sample not related to the deal) let alone a shitload of it. It was an economic arrangement where Russians got ownership of a company but no control over actual uranium shipments out of the country. Also, it wasn't a deal with the Clinton's. It was a deal approved by Obama upon recommendation from the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States and there is no evidence that Hillary was involved in the recommendation by the committee.

"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" -
https://www.snopes.com/hillary-clinton-uranium-russia-deal/

Uranium SAMPLE that was given to the Russians
https://www.snopes.com/hillary-clinton-robert-mueller-uranium/

There certainly is evidence both Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton's State Department were involved, and not just for the big chunk of cash Bill received from Putin:

http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/356323-bill-clinton-sought-states-permission-to-meet-with-russian-nuclear

Hmmmm · Oct 20, 2017

marvin martian said:
There certainly is evidence both Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton's State Department were involved, and not just for the big chunk of cash Bill received from Putin:

http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/356323-bill-clinton-sought-states-permission-to-meet-with-russian-nuclear

We will certainly have to see where this leads but it wasn't Hillary (or Bill's) call to approve the deal. That belonged to Obama. The Committee recommended approval and she wasn't really involved in that recommendation.

I don't defend Hillary much as I don't like her but lets see where the facts lead and what their real impact was on the deal.

marvin martian · Oct 20, 2017

Hmmmm said:
We will certainly have to see where this leads but it wasn't Hillary (or Bill's) call to approve the deal. That belonged to Obama. The Committee recommended approval and she wasn't really involved in that recommendation.

I don't defend Hillary much as I don't like her but lets see where the facts lead and what their real impact was on the deal.

Fair enough. Obama rubber-stamped the deal while Bill and Hillary handled the cash drops.

Arkady · Oct 20, 2017

Days said:
I know, it was sheer coincidence, Russia just happened to work a deal to obtain a shitboat load of highly enriched uranium from the Clinton's and lookie there, they just happened to produce a bunch of new warheads for their their newly deployed mobile ballistic missiles... but yeah, I know about the old program to deconstruct plutonium weapons and burn the fuel as a Mox in Japanese power plants... yeah and buying up mineral rights in Canada... push enough shells around and pretend nothing happened there, right guys? Meanwhile, on Russia's European borders, there's all these new nukes; where did they come from? hmmmmm? 1/3rd of mankind is going to die from the nuclear war that is coming, and we can thank the Clintons for ratcheting up the deployed nukes, they did their part, the devil is sure to give them a nice little retirement; oh wait, Hillary wants to be president, too?

Out of curiosity, what makes you so comfortable with lying? Surely even you aren't so dumb as to think this is about Russia getting highly enriched uranium, and yet you feel comfortable pretending it is.

As a reminder, the story here is that, in 2010, a Russian company bought a majority stake in a Canadian mining company that runs some uranium mines in the US. That purchase had to be approved by the nine members of the Committee on Foreign Investment in the US, one of whom was the secretary of state (the others being Sec of Treasury, Defense, Justice, Commerce, Energy, and Homeland Security plus the US Trade Representative and the head of the Office of Science and Technology Policy.) In addition, it had to be approve by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and regulators in Utah and Canada. Everyone who looked at the deal reached the same conclusion: there's no reason to block the deal. That didn't just include the State Department, whose job was to review it from a diplomatic perspective, but also the DOE and Homeland Security, whose job was to review it from a security perspective.

The reason they all thought it was no problem is the same reason nobody is seriously talking about taking away those mining licenses today, as much as dishonest right-wingers may whine about them for partisan impact. The simple fact is that having those mining rights sit with a Canadian company that has a Russian parent isn't a security threat. The mining rights do not include licenses to export uranium. The US retains full control over whether any of that uranium leaves the country and where it goes . And, of course, it's just yellowcake -- it's not enriched, much less highly enriched. It's just raw uranium in powdered form, in the natural isotope ratios. And it's not even much yellowcake -- the whole US accounts for about 2% of world uranium production, Kazakhstan alone produces almost 20 times as much. Russia doesn't need our yellowcake for themselves.... they just want the profits from running mining operations here. They'd be as happy to be mining talc.

As for the donations angle, the right-wing goons like to make it sound like the Russians bought approval by paying the Clintons. But there's not any evidence that even a penny went from Russians to the Clintons. The best the goon squad can do is to point out that a couple years back before the deal (when Russia wasn't even involved with Uranium One), some Russian investors donated money to a charity the Clintons had set up (a charity they did not control and that didn't pay them one cent).

That's how looney the right-wingers have become. They imagine that somehow Russian investors convinced twelve separate regulators to green-light a deal by way of having donated money to a charity the head of one of the regulators had helped set up, years before the deal was even on the table. You have to pity people who are both that stupid and that paranoid.

marvin martian · Oct 20, 2017

Arkady said:
Out of curiosity, what makes you so comfortable with lying? Surely even you aren't so dumb as to think this is about Russia getting highly enriched uranium, and yet you feel comfortable pretending it is.

As a reminder, the story here is that, in 2010, a Russian company bought a majority stake in a a Canadian mining company that runs some uranium mines in the US. That purchase had to be approved by the nine members of the Committee on Foreign Investment in the US, one of whom was the secretary of state (the others being Sec of Treasury, Defense, Justice, Commerce, Energy, and Homeland Security plus the US Trade Representative and the head of the Office of Science and Technology Policy.) In addition, it had to be approve by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and regulators in Utah and Canada. Everyone who looked at the deal reached the same conclusion: there's no reason to block the deal. That didn't just include the State Department, whose job was to review it from a diplomatic perspective, but also the DOE and Homeland Security, whose job was to review it from a security perspective.

The reason they all thought it was no problem is the same reason nobody is seriously talking about taking away those mining licenses today, as much as dishonest right-wingers may whine about them for partisan impact. The simple fact is that having those mining rights sit with a Canadian company that has a Russian parent isn't a security threat. The mining rights do not include licenses to export uranium. The US retains full control over whether any of that uranium leaves the country and where it goes . And, of course, it's just yellowcake -- it's not enriched, much less highly enriched. It's just raw uranium in powdered form, in the natural isotope ratios. And it's not even much yellowcake -- the whole US accounts for about 2% of world uranium production, Kazakhstan alone produces almost 20 times as much. Russia doesn't need our yellowcake for themselves.... they just want the profits from running mining operations here. They be as happy to be mining talc.

As for the donations angle, the right-wing goons like to make it sound like the Russians bought approval by paying the Clintons. But there's not any evidence that even a penny went from Russians to the Clintons. The best the goon squad can do is to point out that a couple years back before the deal (when Russia wasn't even involved with Uranium One), some Russian investors donated money to a charity the Clintons had set up (a charity they did not control and that didn't pay them one cent).

That's how looney the right-wingers have become. They imagine that somehow Russian investors convinced twelve separate regulators to green-light a deal by way of having donated money to a charity the head of one of the regulators had helped set up, years before the deal was even on the table. You have to pity people who are both that stupid and that paranoid.

Of course not, it's about Bill and Hillary Clinton getting money (what it's always about for them). That our national security was heavily compromised by their money laundering is of zero consequence to them, or you.

Arkady · Oct 20, 2017

marvin martian said:
Of course not, it's about Bill and Hillary Clinton getting money (what it's always about for them).

As a reminder, they didn't get any money out of that deal.

That our national security was heavily compromised by their money laundering is of zero consequence to them, or you.

As a reminder, the deal didn't compromise our national security one little bit, which is why nobody is calling for an end to those mining licenses.

Days · Oct 20, 2017

Hmmmm said:
There never was a deal with Russia to obtain ANY enriched uranium ore (other than a tiny forensic sample not related to the deal) let alone a shitload of it. It was an economic arrangement where Russians got ownership of a company but no control over actual uranium shipments out of the country. Also, it wasn't a deal with the Clinton's. It was a deal approved by Obama upon recommendation from the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States and there is no evidence that Hillary was involved in the recommendation by the committee.

"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" -
https://www.snopes.com/hillary-clinton-uranium-russia-deal/

Uranium SAMPLE that was given to the Russians
https://www.snopes.com/hillary-clinton-robert-mueller-uranium/

Snopes = Liars

you = Russians paid the Clintons mega-millions for nothing.

me thinks you are both Liars.

Now, answer the question in the post instead of posting around it; where did the uranium come from for the warheads Putin deployed with his new mobile missile launchers?

Topol-M missile launches
Published on Apr 12, 2013

MZKT-79221 transporter erector launcher for the Topol-M missile. The Topol is one of the most recent intercontinental ballistic missiles to be deployed by Russia The Topol-M is a cold-launched, three-stage, solid-propellant, silo-based or road-mobile intercontinental ballistic missile.

Spamature · Oct 20, 2017

Sickofleft said:
McCabe, the guy who's wife got thousands upon thousands of dollars from the DNC....yeah he would be impartial......

I think they should testify as to why this information was kept from the higher ups. McCabe and Rosenstein were in charge of the DOJ and FBI investigations into the matter. They have to know the answer to those questions.

Spamature · Oct 20, 2017

Days said:
I know, it was sheer coincidence, Russia just happened to work a deal to obtain a shitboat load of highly enriched uranium from the Clinton's and lookie there, they just happened to produce a bunch of new warheads for their their newly deployed mobile ballistic missiles... but yeah, I know about the old program to deconstruct plutonium weapons and burn the fuel as a Mox in Japanese power plants... yeah and buying up mineral rights in Canada... push enough shells around and pretend nothing happened there, right guys? Meanwhile, on Russia's European borders, there's all these new nukes; where did they come from? hmmmmm? 1/3rd of mankind is going to die from the nuclear war that is coming, and we can thank the Clintons for ratcheting up the deployed nukes, they did their part, the devil is sure to give them a nice little retirement; oh wait, Hillary wants to be president, too?

The Russians don't have an export license. So what ever is mined there as to stay in the US. Part of it can be exported to Canada for refining but even that has to return to the US.

Days · Oct 20, 2017

Arkady said:
Out of curiosity, what makes you so comfortable with lying? Surely even you aren't so dumb as to think this is about Russia getting highly enriched uranium, and yet you feel comfortable pretending it is.

As a reminder, the story here is that, in 2010, a Russian company bought a majority stake in a Canadian mining company that runs some uranium mines in the US. That purchase had to be approved by the nine members of the Committee on Foreign Investment in the US, one of whom was the secretary of state (the others being Sec of Treasury, Defense, Justice, Commerce, Energy, and Homeland Security plus the US Trade Representative and the head of the Office of Science and Technology Policy.) In addition, it had to be approve by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and regulators in Utah and Canada. Everyone who looked at the deal reached the same conclusion: there's no reason to block the deal. That didn't just include the State Department, whose job was to review it from a diplomatic perspective, but also the DOE and Homeland Security, whose job was to review it from a security perspective.

The reason they all thought it was no problem is the same reason nobody is seriously talking about taking away those mining licenses today, as much as dishonest right-wingers may whine about them for partisan impact. The simple fact is that having those mining rights sit with a Canadian company that has a Russian parent isn't a security threat. The mining rights do not include licenses to export uranium. The US retains full control over whether any of that uranium leaves the country and where it goes . And, of course, it's just yellowcake -- it's not enriched, much less highly enriched. It's just raw uranium in powdered form, in the natural isotope ratios. And it's not even much yellowcake -- the whole US accounts for about 2% of world uranium production, Kazakhstan alone produces almost 20 times as much. Russia doesn't need our yellowcake for themselves.... they just want the profits from running mining operations here. They'd be as happy to be mining talc.

As for the donations angle, the right-wing goons like to make it sound like the Russians bought approval by paying the Clintons. But there's not any evidence that even a penny went from Russians to the Clintons. The best the goon squad can do is to point out that a couple years back before the deal (when Russia wasn't even involved with Uranium One), some Russian investors donated money to a charity the Clintons had set up (a charity they did not control and that didn't pay them one cent).

That's how looney the right-wingers have become. They imagine that somehow Russian investors convinced twelve separate regulators to green-light a deal by way of having donated money to a charity the head of one of the regulators had helped set up, years before the deal was even on the table. You have to pity people who are both that stupid and that paranoid.

Funny, cuz the Russians have developed 2 new nuclear weapons at the same time...

Russian 5th Gen RS-24 Yars ICBM! Most Dangerous Strategic Missile System in the World

New Missile Technology Russia ICBM

... and yet you sit there dreaming that there was no enriched uranium purchased or shipped.

Hmmmm · Oct 20, 2017

Days said:
Snopes = Liars

you = Russians paid the Clintons mega-millions for nothing.

me thinks you are both Liars.

Now, answer the question in the post instead of posting around it; where did the uranium come from for the warheads Putin deployed with his new mobile missile launchers?

If you don't like Snopes, prove them wrong with verified sources, not the logic of some guy in a tin-foil hat sitting in his trailer.

The Clintons didn't get paid. The foundation did and there is no proof the Clinton's profited.

"where did the uranium come from for the warheads Putin deployed with his new mobile missile launchers?" I don't know and I don't fvcking give a shit relative to Clinton and the deal being made. There is a huge amount of uranium floating around. Where did the Russians get any of their uranium? Maybe they had it stockpiled from the good old days when there was a nuclear weapon in every house. It proves nothing regarding the Uranium deal under discussion. It isn't even much of a coincidence.

Days · Oct 20, 2017

Hmmmm said:
If you don't like Snopes, prove them wrong with verified sources, not the logic of some guy in a tin-foil hat sitting in his trailer.

The Clintons didn't get paid. The foundation did and there is no proof the Clinton's profited.

"where did the uranium come from for the warheads Putin deployed with his new mobile missile launchers?" I don't know and I don't fvcking give a shit relative to Clinton and the deal being made. There is a huge amount of uranium floating around. Where did the Russians get any of their uranium? Maybe they had it stockpiled from the good old days when there was a nuclear weapon in every house. It proves nothing regarding the Uranium deal under discussion. It isn't even much of a coincidence.

Not much of a coincidence, eh?

... you'll have to do better than that. It is the single biggest developement in the nuclear world; it is far more important than your petty politics, and it is no coincidence that the Russians sought to buy enriched uranium to build their new nukes.

The Russians are building the systems, so what does that tell you? It tells you they obtained the uranium they were seeking. Whether it came from the Clinton deal or not (and stop pretending Snopes has the answer) doesn't matter, her work toward helping the Russians secure that uranium is treason.

Here is a heads up on what is happening on the planet. The Russians are deploying two new icbm nukes, it is - by far - the biggest nuclear developement of the 21st century. Maybe you should be more concerned about that, than just winning a political argument over what Clinton did to help it along.

Russian 5th Gen RS-24 Yars ICBM! Most Dangerous Strategic Missile System in the World

New Missile Technology Russia ICBM

Jen · Oct 20, 2017

Days said:
Not much of a coincidence, eh?

... you'll have to do better than that. It is the single biggest developement in the nuclear world; it is far more important by far than your petty politics, and it is no coincidence that the Russians sought to buy enriched uranium to build their new nukes.

The Russians are building the systems, so what does that tell you? It tells you they obtained the uranium they were seeking. Whether it came from the Clinton deal or not (and stop pretending Snopes has the answer) doesn't matter, her work toward helping the Russians secure that uranium is treason.

heads up on what is happening on the planet. The Russians are deploying two new icbm nukes, it is - by far - the biggest nuclear developement of the 21st century. Maybe you should be more concerned about that, than just winning a political argument over what Clinton did to help it along.

Russian 5th Gen RS-24 Yars ICBM! Most Dangerous Strategic Missile System in the World

New Missile Technology Russia ICBM

The Clinton Crime Family sold nuke materials to the Russians for personal gain when Hillary was SoS. Others were complicit: Eric Holder, Mueller, Rosenstein, and probably Obama. They all belong in prison for the remainder of their lives. They SHOULD be shot.

Days · Oct 20, 2017

Jen said:
The Clinton Crime Family sold nuke materials to the Russians for personal gain when Hillary was SoS. Others were complicit: Eric Holder, Mueller, Rosenstein, and probably Obama. They all belong in prison for the remainder of their lives. They SHOULD be shot.

... for this particular crime, they all should be shot. This was treason.

Arkady · Oct 20, 2017

Days said:
Funny, cuz the Russians have developed 2 new nuclear weapons at the same time...

Russian 5th Gen RS-24 Yars ICBM! Most Dangerous Strategic Missile System in the World

New Missile Technology Russia ICBM

... and yet you sit there dreaming that there was no enriched uranium purchased or shipped.

Why on earth would you imagine that Russia needs American uranium to build nuclear weapons? They're practically drowning in weapons-grade nuclear material.

As you can see, they had as many as 40,000 warheads at one point, and now have 5,000. Access to nuclear material is simply not a controlling factor for the Russians. They have so damned much of the material, thanks to decommissioning all those old warheads as part of arms control, that they wind up selling it off to us to use as nuclear power station fuel:

http://www.npr.org/2013/12/11/250007526/megatons-to-megawatts-russian-warheads-fuel-u-s-power-plants

This notion that Russia was desperate for American uranium so that they could build new nukes is so hilariously stupid that it's the kind of thing you'll only find being blathered by anonymous right-wing hacks in obscure online chat forums.

There's a reason that NONE of the many reviewers of the Uranium One deal saw it as a problem, at the time, and why the Republicans didn't make a stink about it then, and why to this day there's no movement to hand control of those mines to some other company. EVERYBODY who knows anything about the topic knows that Russia doesn't need access to our raw uranium in order to build as many nukes as they'd like. It's just that some really dishonest propagandists have to pretend that somehow those mines are a security threat -- simply because it's an angle for the ongoing game of "Get Clinton."

Arkady · Oct 20, 2017

Days said:
... for this particular crime, they all should be shot. This was treason.

Hahehehehaa. You fall perfectly into a time-honored character trope:

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TooDumbToLive

Jen · Oct 20, 2017

Days said:
... for this particular crime, they all should be shot. This was treason.

That's why I said it.

Days · Oct 20, 2017

Arkady said:
Why on earth would you imagine that Russia needs American uranium to build nuclear weapons? They're practically drowning in weapons-grade nuclear material.

As you can see, they had as many as 40,000 warheads at one point, and now have 5,000. Access to nuclear material is simply not a controlling factor for the Russians. They have so damned much of the material, thanks to decommissioning all those old warheads as part of arms control, that they wind up selling it off to us to use as nuclear power station fuel:

http://www.npr.org/2013/12/11/250007526/megatons-to-megawatts-russian-warheads-fuel-u-s-power-plants

This notion that Russia was desperate for American uranium so that they could build new nukes is so hilariously stupid that it's the kind of thing you'll only find being blathered by anonymous right-wing hacks in obscure online chat forums.

There's a reason that NONE of the many reviewers of the Uranium One deal saw it as a problem, at the time, and why the Republicans didn't make a stink about it then, and why to this day there's no movement to hand control of those mines to some other company. EVERYBODY who knows anything about the topic knows that Russia doesn't need access to our raw uranium in order to build as many nukes as they'd like. It's just that some really dishonest propagandists have to pretend that somehow those mines are a security threat -- simply because it's an angle for the ongoing game of "Get Clinton."

The fact is, Russia has developed two huge nuclear icbm systems, and just prior to building them, they sought to buy uranium. Now, I'm not the sharpest tool in the shed, but that tells me, they needed uranium to build those weapon systems. And since they are building them, it also tells me they obtained the uranium they were after.

It also tells me you are more concerned with protecting the Clintons than the nuclear jeopardy their treason has helped create.

Goodbye Bob Mueller

Senator

Mayor

Emperor

Mayor

Emperor

President

Emperor

President

Commentator

President

President

Commentator

Mayor

Commentator

Senator

Commentator

President

President

Senator

Commentator