Republicans just introduced a resolution to remove Mueller from the Trump-Russia investigation
Posted: 05 November 2017 06:59 PM   [ Ignore ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1625
Joined  2016-12-24

I couldn’t resist coming over to share this jaw dropper.  The GOP attack on our democratic government and checks and balances.

Joe Perticone Nov 3, 2017
http://www.businessinsider.com/republicans-introduce-bill-to-remove-bob-mueller-from-special-counsel-2017-11

Rep. Matt Gaetz of Florida is calling for Robert Mueller to resign as the special counsel investigating Russia’s interference in the 2016 US election.

Gaetz cites a lack of charges relating to a 2010 uranium deal approved by US government agencies under Mueller’s watch as the reason.

WASHINGTON — A group of conservative Republican lawmakers introduced a resolution on Friday calling for Robert Mueller to recuse himself as the special counsel investigating Russia’s interference in the 2016 US election and whether President Donald Trump’s campaign team colluded with Moscow.

Reps. Matt Gaetz of Florida, Andy Biggs of Arizona, and Louie Gohmert of Texas say Mueller should step down because he was the FBI director in 2010 when US government agencies approved the sale of Uranium One, a Canadian energy company, to a Russian nuclear-energy firm. The deal required approval because Uranium One had mining operations in the US.

Gaetz says the issue is that Mueller’s FBI had found evidence of criminal activity that may have been relevant to the deal but did not bring any charges, and that Mueller therefore should recuse himself from the current investigation.

Here are some fascinating reads looking into the topic.

The Facts on Uranium One
By   Eugene Kiely Posted on October 26, 2017   | Updated on November 1, 2017
http://www.factcheck.org/2017/10/facts-uranium-one/

Two House committees have said that they will investigate the Obama administration’s approval of a deal that gave Russia a financial interest in U.S. uranium production.
The 2010 deal allowed Rosatom, the Russian nuclear energy agency, to acquire a controlling stake in Uranium One, a Canadian-based company with mining stakes in the Western United States.
We covered it during the 2016 presidential campaign, when Donald Trump falsely accused former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton of giving away U.S. uranium rights to the Russians and claimed — without evidence — that it was done in exchange for donations to the Clinton Foundation.
Now, the issue is back in the news, and numerous readers have asked us about it again. So we will recap here what we know — and don’t know — about the 2010 deal.
The Deal

The Committee on Foreign Investments in the United States ...

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission ...

Clinton Foundation Donations and Bill Clinton Speaking Fee ...

Back in the News ...

Hillary Clinton Gave 20 Percent of United States’ Uranium to Russia in Exchange for Clinton Foundation Donations?
Allegations of a “quid pro quo” deal giving Russia ownership of one-fifth of U.S. uranium deposits in exchange for $145 million in donations to the Clinton Foundation are unsubstantiated.
https://www.snopes.com/hillary-clinton-uranium-russia-deal/

What you need to know about Hillary Clinton, Russia, and uranium

By Louis Jacobson, John Kruzel on Tuesday, October 24th, 2017
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2017/oct/24/what-you-need-know-about-hillary-clinton-and-urani/

... Why some of the critics’ charges during the campaign went too far
In June 2016, we fact-checked a statement by then-candidate Donald Trump—who was running against Clinton for president—that Clinton’s State Department “approved the transfer of 20 percent of America’s uranium holdings to Russia, while nine investors in the deal funneled $145 million to the Clinton Foundation.”

We gave the statement a rating of Mostly False. While the connections between the Clinton Foundation and the Russian deal may appear fishy, there was simply no proof of any quid pro quo.

Trump’s allegation went too far in two ways.

One, Trump seemed to say that Clinton bears all of the responsibility for the deal’s approval. That is incorrect.

Clinton told a New Hampshire TV station in June 2015 that “I was not personally involved because that wasn’t something the secretary of state did.” And Jose Fernandez, who served as assistant secretary of state for economic, energy and business affairs under Clinton and represented the department on the panel, told the Times that Clinton “never intervened with me on any CFIUS matter.”

But even if you don’t take either Clinton or Fernandez at their word, the reality is that the State Department was just one of nine government agencies that signed off on the transaction.

Second, while we concluded that nine people related to the company did at some point donate to the Clinton Foundation, we found that the bulk of the $145 million came from Giustra. Guistra said he sold all of his stakes in Uranium One in the fall of 2007, “at least 18 months before Hillary Clinton became secretary of state” and three years before the Russian deal.

We couldn’t independently verify Giustra’s claim, but if he is telling the truth, the donation amount to the Clinton Foundation from confirmed Uranium One investors drops from more than $145 million to $4 million.

The main exception is Ian Telfer, an investor who the New York Times found donated between $1.3 million and $5.6 million to the Clinton Foundation during and after the review process for the Russian deal.

So while Trump was within his right to question links between foundation donors and their ties to Uranium one, his specific charge was exaggerated. ...

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 November 2017 12:35 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 1 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4314
Joined  2014-06-20

What else would spineless guilty people do? They are staying true to form. You wouldn’t expect them to grow a functioning brain overnight after a lifetime of ignorance, would you. They’re Republicans after all.

Lois

 Signature 

[color=red“Nothing is so good as it seems beforehand.”
― George Eliot, Silas Marner[/color]

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 November 2017 03:12 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 2 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2209
Joined  2013-06-01
LoisL - 06 November 2017 12:35 AM

What else would spineless guilty people do? They are staying true to form. You wouldn’t expect them to grow a functioning brain overnight after a lifetime of ignorance, would you. They’re Republicans after all.

Lois

It must be that the Republicans have a Democratic leader that makes them so successful.  grin

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 November 2017 10:17 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 3 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4314
Joined  2014-06-20
MikeYohe - 06 November 2017 03:12 PM
LoisL - 06 November 2017 12:35 AM

What else would spineless guilty people do? They are staying true to form. You wouldn’t expect them to grow a functioning brain overnight after a lifetime of ignorance, would you. They’re Republicans after all.

Lois

It must be that the Republicans have a Democratic leader that makes them so successful.  grin

They have a a-hole for a leader and they’re not successful at all, except at being morons, just like their leader.

 Signature 

[color=red“Nothing is so good as it seems beforehand.”
― George Eliot, Silas Marner[/color]

Profile