Uranium One

[Bill Peckham]

Even if you accept the idea that the quid in the Uranium One deal is 145 million dollars (the actual donations by various Uranium One investors in the years before and after the Russian deal is 4 million but whatevs let's say it is $145) let's look at what they bought for about 3 billion dollars (purchase price plus the Baksheesh) with the business plan to increase the company's overall ore production from 10 million to 16 million pounds.

So what happened? The price of uranium ore has gone from about $40/pound to $20/pound today, Uranium One's final year in business seems to be Q1 2015 when they managed to sell 3 million pounds. Why hasn't getting back these mining rights been a priority for the Trump administration and everyone who to this day is upset up about the uranium one deal? But that isn't the weird thing. The weird thing is if this was all a devious plot that required bribes and complicated coordination across 9 cabinet level agencies you'd think there would be more pro quo. It has never been explained why the russians would be willing to pay a 7% premium (in the form of bribes) on a pretty straight forward energy/mining industry deal. That would true if it turned out to be a genius business move but as it now stands it is even harder to explain the why. Why would you pay for the privilege of investing in the always risky extraction industry?

I could understand the incentives if for instance a country gave your personal family company valuable copyrights that would be a source of wealth for decades. You'd expect something of equal value in return, like I don't know, allow their state run phone company even footing in the global mobile device market. Even if they cheat and steal that would be a good deal - copyrights in a market of over a billion consumers that will benefit your family for untold generations in return for something you don't give a p*ck about. It's a no brainer. That crazy scenario is where the real money is, none of this AIDS bullshit.

[Simon Dog]

There is a real simple metric to see if the was chicanery in the donations to the Clinton Foundation.

Compare the donations to the foundation made by those standing to benefit from access during the time period with Hillary was in power to the level of donation they have made since she became a has-been.   If their motivations were altruistic, rather than skid greasing, you will see no statistical change in the level of donation.   If, however, the donations have tapered off its prima-facie evidence that the donations were made to curry favor.

[Bill Peckham]

Well contributions and grants totaled about 330 million in 2014 when her influence was ?  Then in 2016 the number was 216, the numbers seem counter to your theory.   


What exactly was all this access suppose to be getting for people? And what were the Clintons supposed to have gotten personally?  I don't remember Chelsea getting lifetime sinctures from the Saudis.

[Simon Dog]

Well contributions and grants totaled about 330 million in 2014 when her influence was ?  Then in 2016 the number was 216, the numbers seem counter to your theory.   


What exactly was all this access suppose to be getting for people? And what were the Clintons supposed to have gotten personally?  I don't remember Chelsea getting lifetime sinctures from the Saudis.

Interesting, but do you have numbers for the Saudis or contributors associated with U1?

My theory was a method of applying a test, not a conclusion - so evidence on either side is not counter to, or supportive, of a theory that draws no conclusion.

[Michael Murphy]

The problem was Hilary was one of 9 cabinet members that had votes on the issue, chairman of the committee was Treasury secretary not Secretary of State. Finally Hilary never voted on the issue never attended any of the sessions nor did she have a deputy attend. The prime players on this issue was the Defence, Treasury, and Energy Secretaries.

[Bill Peckham]

Well contributions and grants totaled about 330 million in 2014 when her influence was ?  Then in 2016 the number was 216, the numbers seem counter to your theory.   


What exactly was all this access suppose to be getting for people? And what were the Clintons supposed to have gotten personally?  I don't remember Chelsea getting lifetime sinctures from the Saudis.

Interesting, but do you have numbers for the Saudis or contributors associated with U1?

My theory was a method of applying a test, not a conclusion - so evidence on either side is not counter to, or supportive, of a theory that draws no conclusion.

The Clinton Foundation is organized in a confusing manner but it operates as a pretty ordinary NGO/donor match maker AND if she were president I think I would be paying more attention to their activities. You would be wholly justified in scrutinizing the foundation's financials. As it stands they have pulled back and seem to be regrouping. One last thing to keep in mind - you can see lifetime donors here https://www.clintonfoundation.org/contributors - the Clinton Family Foundation has given between $5 -10,000,000 over time. Yet they are suppose to be getting bribed/influenced via donations to the Clinton Foundation. Altruism is a real thing. People think I could have sponsors directing my advocacy - however, no one pays me (aside from various honorariums) while I donate tens of thousands of dollars to kidney orgs I support. Accepting my money is a weird way of buy my opinion.

Trump is your president - there is some very sketchy shit going on. It's full acceptable and okay if you want to hold animosity in your heart towards Clinton and strongly oppose Democratic policy priorities.  That's one thing. No problem. Separate from that is the President's actions to personally enrich his family which are not a partisan issue. This is not precedented, republican voters must not allow this to become precedent. Republican voters have to support a check on this President. I think Republican voters are duty bound to vote for a democrat for congress in 2018. The price for not vetting your 2016 presidential candidate.

[Bill Peckham]

Reminder: The only alternative to the cruelty and chaos our nation is now enduring was to elect a person who used a personal email account for work ... I know tough call.