Future
Lv 7
Future asked in Politics & GovernmentPolitics · 3 years ago

Turns out $131 million of the money donated by the South African/Russian uranium company was donated before Hillary was SOS, and he sold his?

....his shares in 2007. I'm talking about Trump's false claim a "Russian company" donated $145M to the Clinton Foundation as "pay to play."

Update:

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.

Update 3:

In other words, years before Russia even became partial owners of that company!!!!

Update 4:

And even more hilariously, that uranium is still sitting in the US, they "own" it but they can't take it, LOOL!!!!

Update 5:

Stop moving my questions butthurt con loser.

4 Answers

Relevance
  • Anonymous
    3 years ago
    Favorite Answer

    Uranium Overreach

    Trump repeated his misleading claim that Hillary Clinton “gave” Russia one-fifth of all U.S. uranium.

    Trump: You know, they say I’m close to Russia. Hillary Clinton gave away 20 percent of the uranium in the United States. She’s close to Russia.

    He’s wrong on several counts. The deal Clinton had a role in approving gave Russia ownership of 20 percent of U.S. production capacity — not existing stocks of uranium. Furthermore, Clinton alone could not have stopped the deal; only the president could have done that with a finding that national security would be endangered. Lastly, none of the uranium goes to Russia. That would require export licenses.

    Trump was referring to Clinton’s role in the 2010 purchase by Russia’s nuclear agency of Uranium One, a Toronto-based company with mining operations in Kazakhstan, Tanzania and the United States, where the company’s operations amount to about 20 percent of annual U.S. production capacity.

    The fact is — as we reported nearly two years ago — Clinton had no veto power to stop that deal. She was one of nine voting members on the foreign investments committee that unanimously approved it, a panel that also includes the secretaries of the treasury, defense, homeland security, commerce and energy, the attorney general, and representatives from two White House offices — the United States Trade Representative and the Office of Science and Technology Policy. (Separately, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission needed to approve (and did approve) the transfer of two uranium recovery licenses as part of the sale.)

    Only the president could have stopped the sale, and only if at least one member of the foreign investment committee had objected. And even then, the president cannot prohibit a transaction without finding “credible evidence” that the “foreign interest exercising control might take action that threatens to impair the national security,” according to the federal regulation that governs such matters.

    Finally, Russia may own the mines, but the uranium coming out of them stays in the U.S. As the Nuclear Regulatory Commission noted when it approved the sale, “no uranium produced at either facility may be exported.”

    Trump made the same claim in slightly different words three times during his news conference. It’s a replay of a bogus accusation he made during last year’s campaign, when it was debunked by us and other independent fact-checking sites. But constant repetition doesn’t make a false statement true.

    http://www.factcheck.org/2017/02/factchecking-trum...

    To say that President Donald Trump has a casual relationship with the truth would be a gross understatement. He has repeatedly cited debunked conspiracy theories, pushed voter fraud myths, and embellished his record and accomplishments.

    Many people, mostly those outside of Trump’s supporter community, are both appalled and baffled by his lies. How can a President — even one like Trump — Tweet or otherwise give statements that are either clearly untrue, or implausible and totally without evidence.

  • 3 years ago

    It was general knowledge that Hillary was planning to run for President so any contribution to the Foundation could be suspected to be an attempt to buy influence.

    • Future
      Lv 7
      3 years agoReport

      Lol before Obama was even elected?

  • Anonymous
    3 years ago

    It was in 2010

    Snopes is a left wing propaganda site masquerading as a fact check site.

    • Future
      Lv 7
      3 years agoReport

      lol, I had 5 links posted on my last question. I'm tired of trying to educate you idiots.

  • Anonymous
    3 years ago

    The world has never seen anything like Trump's lies. It's a good thing we have an independent prosecutor looking into his situation.

    • Future
      Lv 7
      3 years agoReport

      This is all crap he gets from Fox News and Breitbart. The world has never seen a president idiotic enough to think those are news sources!

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.