How Many Weasels Make Up the GOP: Most Known Species Fit the Bill

Top 3 GOP Weasels in "Leadership Roles"

Top GOP Cheerleader on most Bogus Issues

(Fox Puts Hannity the Center of that Boogle)

Update on the following from this Shep Smith on Fox:

While Fox News has doubled down on the “Clinton-Russian Pay-to-Play Uranium One” story on recent weeks, devoting hours of programming time to the Obama-era uranium deal in an effort to paint it as “the real Russian conspiracy,” one prominent face on the network has completely avoided covering it.

Until today, that is. And let’s just say, he covered the story in a far different way than, say, Sean Hannity. With Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee pushing Attorney General Jeff Sessions today to appoint a special counsel to investigate Hillary Clinton’s involvement in the deal, 

Fox News anchor Shepard Smith devoted a few minutes this afternoon to breaking down the facts of the deal. In doing so, he made it clear that much of what’s been reported on his own network about the “scandalous” deal doesn’t hold water.

After giving a bit of a history lesson on mining company Uranium One and the 2010 deal involving a Russian agency obtaining controlling interest in the company, Smith highlighted that this rose to the level of scandal after a Breitbart editor-at-large wrote in a 2015 book that a quid-pro-quo occurred between then-Secretary of State Clinton and Russia via donations to the Clinton Foundation.

Smith said: “That statement is inaccurate in a number of ways. First, the Clinton State Department had no power to veto or approve that transaction. It could do neither.”

Smith then went on to explain how the approval process worked with this particular deal while pointing out that Clinton appeared to have very little, if any, involvement. Also, regarding the claims that $140 million was donated to the Clinton Foundation from investors involved in the deal, Smith pointed out that most of those donations cited were from a man who sold his stake in the company in 2007, three years before the deal.

He ended his report by saying the following – see the clip from Smith’s show in the above link – it is keeper for sure. The question is: How many GOPers will believe the facts vs. the BS?
======================================================

Previous background information follows: 

INTRODUCTION: Actually more deflective SMOKE AND MIRRORS from a string of the latest Trump tweet that resemble this: During the 2016 presidential campaign, Trump lodged the uranium accusation during a campaign rally saying that “Hillary Clinton gave up 20 percent of America’s uranium supply to Russia — to Russia.”

(Note: According to Politifact, Trump said that and ranked the claim “mostly false” because there was no evidence of a quid pro quo, adding: “The State Department did approve the Uranium-One deal, but it didn’t act unilaterally. It was one of nine U.S. government agencies, plus independent federal and state nuclear regulators, as well as the Canadian government had to sign off on the deal.” And, separately, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) needed to approve, and did approve, the transfer of two uranium recovery licenses as part of the sale.)

Key Facts that are stunning and should be a wakeup call for all Americans and especially the right-wingers who follow this crap without facts:

1. Only CFIUS can approve a sale, but it cannot stop a sale. Only the president can do that (stop a sale), and then only if the committee recommends or “any member of CFIUS recommends suspension or prohibition of the transaction.”

2. According to guidelines issued by the Treasury Department in December 2008 (Note: Barack Obama was not president in December 2008) and then after the department adopted its final rule which was a month earlier (Note: That would have been in November 2008 and under President George W. Bush).

That rule reads “Treasury Department, Dec. 8, 2008: Only the President has the authority to suspend or prohibit a covered transaction. Pursuant to section 6(c) of Executive Order 11858, CFIUS refers a covered transaction to the President if CFIUS or any member of CFIUS recommends suspension or prohibition of the transaction, or if CFIUS otherwise seeks a Presidential determination on the transaction.”

Further note: Even the president cannot prohibit a transaction without “credible evidence that the foreign interest exercising control might take action that threatens to impair the national security.”

Note: Very little is known about the Uranium-One-Rosatom deal or even Clinton's role in it because the law for such matters and according to Treasury Department guidelines have:

“Strong confidentiality requirements by law information filed with CFIUS is subject to strong confidentiality requirements that prohibit disclosure to the public, and accordingly, CFIUS does not disclose whether parties to any transaction have filed notices with CFIUS, nor does CFIUS disclose the results of any review. When a transaction is referred to the President, however, the decision of the President is announced publicly.” 

Also note: Jose Fernandez, former Assistant SOS represented State with CFIUS has stated that: “Mrs. Clinton never intervened with me on any CFIUS matter.”

Summary: Schweizer raises legitimate questions about the Clinton Foundation and its donations but, he simply goes too far when he says Clinton had “veto power and could have stopped the uranium deal” when in fact only the President has the authority to suspend or prohibit (not approve) such a covered transaction. Through a spokeswoman, Schweizer backpedaled and told the TIMES that he “meant the Clinton could have forced the issue to the president's desk.” However, at is not what he said when he appeared on Fox News Sunday, where he discussed the uranium deal and his book (which was released May 5, 2015).

Chris Wallace, host of Fox News Sunday: Made that point when he questioned Schweizer about his lack of evidence connecting the donations to the uranium deal. (Note: Fox News was among the media outlets that received an advance copy of the Schweizer book). Schweizer made his counter-argument and again without any evidence that “…investors bought Hillary Clinton’s silence by making contributions to the Clinton Foundation.” Schweizer speculated that investors were worried about Clinton's history of opposing the sale of “critical assets in the U.S.,” while citing her opposition as a senator to the 2006 sale of six U.S. ports to Dubai Ports World, a state-owned business in the United Arab Emirates.

Chris Wallace: “Nine separate agencies and the Clinton campaign all pointed out there's no hard evidence, and you don't cite any in the book that Hillary Clinton took direct action or was involved in any way in approving as one of nine agencies the sale of the company?”

Schweizer: “Well, here's what's important to keep in mind: it was one of nine agencies, but any one of those agencies had veto power. So, she could have stopped the deal. So, what's interesting about this, of all those nine agencies, who was the most hawkish on these types of issues? Hillary Clinton. She had a reputation going back to the Dubai Ports deal.” Schweizer and his publicist were emailed links about the comments and assertions to CRS report and the regulation that governs the CFIUS and their work.

Schweizer responded through the publicist saying (in fancy sidestepping): “By veto I mean halt the deal and advance their concerns to the President.” He then also noted that Clinton was the only committee member who had a family foundation that received donations from the investors in the uranium deal. Finally, Schweizer is trafficking in speculation. He raises legitimate questions about the Clinton Foundation and its donations – all fair game. But, he goes too far when he says Clinton had “veto power and could have stopped the uranium deal.” 

(I note: That is flat out a lie – and whopper to boot).

And here we are today: Talk Radio and Fox (Hannity types) trying to shift the focus from Trump-Russia and that mess to this non-issue issue.

For Trump to get DOJ to assign a Mueller-type S/C to investigate here is just flat out raw nasty ugly mean politics of the worst kind – hands down – and possibly illegal and unlawful with Trump’s pressure on AG Sessions (which he denies) and the DOJ to get involved – design: Take the dam pressure off of me. /s/ Trump.

Plus, the shades of Nixon and Watergate now hover over the White House.

100% stay tuned … and thanks for stopping by.