Yes, Uranium did get exported from the Uranium One deal

[Old Town FFX]

Oh look, another one of these threads.

[legalsea]

Originally Posted by nononsenseguy

The Uranium One scandal in perspective: Bill Clinton Received $500 K from the Putin regime, five times more than it allegedly spent on Facebook ads that the "media-Democrat complex claims swung the election away from Hillary to Donald Trump.

Here's the story that CNN, MSNBC, et al. won't tell you:

Uranium One Deal: Obama Administration Complicit, Not Just | National Review

Notice that the Facebook ad buy began in June, 2015, well before Donald Trump entered the race. But Democrats never let facts get in the way of their lies. The Putin regime paid the $500 K for one speech by Bill Clinton, part of a multi-million-dollar influence peddling scheme to enrich Bill and Hillary (then Secretary of State) in order to gain their approval of the Uranium One acquisition deal.

I see you repeated the link's passage about the FB ad 'began in June, 2015, well before Donald Trump entered the race'.

Actually, Mr. Trump made his announcement on June 16, 2015. I'm a little surprised you didn't recall that, or look it up.

[legalsea]

As for CNN not reporting on Uranium One:

FBI informant allowed to testify on Russian uranium efforts - CNNPolitics

Obama-era uranium deal yields new questions, new accusations and new investigation - CNNPolitics

House Republicans investigating Obama-era uranium deal - CNNPolitics

et al

[G1..]

Originally Posted by legalsea

As for CNN not reporting on Uranium One:

FBI informant allowed to testify on Russian uranium efforts - CNNPolitics

Obama-era uranium deal yields new questions, new accusations and new investigation - CNNPolitics

House Republicans investigating Obama-era uranium deal - CNNPolitics

et al

SO,CNN did COVER IT,THANK YOU.

[Casper in Dallas]

Originally Posted by momonkey

Yes, but we do.


See how that works?

Nope.


I see how you make lots of claims, sometimes based on nothing other times on dubious at best sources.

[Mason3000]

Originally Posted by Ariadne22

Oh, that's rich. Do you even know what "in-situ" means? Once, again, try reading - but here is the relevant paragraph from the WaPo no less geezus h c..... it's no gd wonder this country is in trouble - people spewing baseless information all over the internet for the lazy and stupid.

Clue: Production capacity does NOT mean reserves. So, let's try again:
This issue is WAY TOO COMPLICATED and SCIENTIFIC for any layman to be commenting on.

Until an actual nuclear physicist can demonstrate a clear and present danger to the US by this so-called sale, I call bs on the entire issue.

So the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission's actual words are irrelevant? Let's just go with whatever you want it to mean then.