Michael Roberts - "Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich Hardcover – May 5, 2015

Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation Amid Russian Uranium Deal By JO BECKER and MIKE McINTIRE APRIL 23, 2015"

_____________________________________________________

A U.S. subsidiary of a foreign company is still subject to US law. Prior to ARMZ holding it, Uranium One was a Canadian company.

All this "scandal" has taught me is what a small player the US currently is in the uranium industry and how we're dependent on imported uranium. The US has one plant that can convert yellowcake to uranium hexafluoride (which is why yellowcake would need to be sent to Canada then back) and one plant capable of enriching uranium.

Michael Roberts - "A U.S. subsidiary of a foreign company is still subject to US law. Prior to ARMZ holding it, Uranium One was a Canadian company.

"All this "scandal" has taught me is what a small player the US currently is in the uranium industry and how we're dependent on imported uranium. The US has one plant that can convert yellowcake to uranium hexafluoride (which is why yellowcake would need to be sent to Canada then back) and one plant capable of enriching uranium.

________________________________________________________

Because we are already dependent on imported uranium is an excuse to  make the situation even worse?

-----------------------------

This seems a far cry from the MSM playing deaf, dumb and blind when it comes to the left.

The scrutiny by the media of anyone in office, be they from the right or left, is highly important.

It's important that when a person of power and influence says something demonstrably false that they are held to account for it.

Say, if a president claims their inauguration was the most watched in history when it wasn't. The media is needed to stand up against this kind of propaganda. Hamstring those that don't tow the party line and it won't be just the uranium market that has a Russian feel to it.

Peter Martin - "It's important that when a person of power and influence says something demonstrably false that they are held to account for it."

__________________________________________________________

You mean saying things like:

"If you like your health care plan, you can keep it."

"If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor"

or that premiums would decline by $2,500 per year under Obamacare.

just to name a few.

Or how about lying to the American people during the 2012 election campaign and saying Obamacare is not a tax and then arguing later to the Supreme Court that it was?

If you are trying to demonstrate the failure of the mainstream media to hold Obama to account, rising premiums is not a good example, as it was covered widely (examples: LINK 1, LINK 2, LINK 3).

If you are trying to conflate your Obama examples with Trump's lies they are not equivalent. Obama promising something about the future on the campaign trail and then not holding to those promises when the future rolls around is one thing (an equivalent would be Bush Sr with his infamous "Read my lips, no more taxes" speech).

Trump lying about an objective fact in the past is another thing entirely. For example, saying he saw (on TV) thousands and thousands of people cheering in New Jersey when the towers fell during the 911 attacks. Or saying more people watched his inauguration in person than any other president in history. Or saying he never backed the war in Iraq. These are all things of which readily available evidence says one thing and he says another. He argues black is white and then threatens to take away broadcast licences if he gets called on it.

I take it you are arguing that we need a strong media to hold those in power accountable. In which case, I would say we agree.

——

How is the situation made “worse”? A foreign company held the rights to the uranium capacity prior to the deal and a foreign company held the rights to the uranium capacity after the deal. Note that this was before Putin’s aggression in Crimea. While there were some concerns, the buyout was relatively non-controversial.

This was not something that the Secretary of State had unilateral decision over. Or even something that required intervention on the part of the SoS. I know the Democrats all step in line during the secret pedophile meetings in pizza restaurant basements, but someone will still have to explain why multiple Obama administration Cabinet members would have a vested interest in having money donated to Clinton’s charity foundation. Come back when you can show multiple bribes. 

This story seems more about sabotaging the FBI officials working on the Mueller investigation by implicating them in a cover-up than the effect on our uranium supplies. 

—-

Sure. My insurance became cheaper and covered more. My friend, who’s a lawyer with his own firm and more than enough money to buy insurance, was finally able to get insured. He was unable to do so before, even though he could afford it, because of a pre-existing condition.

——

Again, a US subsidiary of a foreign-owned company is still subject to US law and regulation.