Oh, I've heard cons "hyperventilate" about them for a while but every time I take time to look at those "scandals" during the Obama administration they're a tempest in a teapot. Truthfully, I never bothered to look at the uranium deal, so I just sat down and googled "clinton uranium deal Russia" and found this on the first search page:
http://www.snopes.com/hillary-clinton-uranium-russia-deal/
And this article, which adds these facts:
The national security issue at stake in the Uranium One deal was not primarily about nuclear weapons proliferation, the Times reported, because the United States and Russia had for years cooperated on that front, with Russia sending enriched fuel from decommissioned warheads to be used in American nuclear power plants in return for raw uranium.
and
"Given that Russia doesn’t have the licenses to export uranium outside the United States, it was likely more interested in Uranium One’s assets in Kazakhstan, the world’s largest uranium producer, our colleagues said."
Poncadan, you'll never get the straight truth from medic. Look no farther than Trump and the way they circulate that stuff that's plainly wrong.
Regarding the Clinton Foundation and pay for play, the above article touched on it. I'll agree 100% she's corrupt -- I called her out before the election for enabling Iraq war, failed at health care reform and did nothing to justify her standing beyond get elected or appointed as SOS. Plus, I saw her with my own eyes just pass out 2 - 3 times during the campaign, and she denied it. It was on FILM.
But I've quit chasing these conservative "scandals" because every time I do, it's not what is represented and it's a waste of my time. They tried to whip up a scandal at every turn, including wholecloth fabrication (birth certificate) and Biff lying about what he found. Remember that?
This is a pretty good example -- you wrote, "How Russia - Russia!!! - was awarded rights to our only supply of nuclear fission materials after it donated money to the Clinton Foundation?" and that's inaccurate. Russia did not receive an "award of rights", they can't get uranium out of the country if we don't want it, we've traded them uranium for years, Russia did not make the contributions, and the guy that made those gave up his stake in the subject company years before the government (again, not Hillary, if you read up on it).
Also, Medic and I have a past. He's a rabid skeptic of carbon-induced climate change. When you finally scrub him down, he doesn't beleive the science because it came from either government money or private money. I'm not shitting you -- that's the spirit of intellectual honesty he brings to the table. He only believes like... landscapers or ophthalmologists about climatology issues. maybe a good plumber. So... no. I haven't wasted time (beyond this post) looking into his offered "scandals."
