Timeline for Did Hillary Clinton give Russia 20% of the United States' uranium?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
19 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 21, 2017 at 12:10 | comment | added | Colonel Panic | Right, I hoped to be informative. The question concerns uranium trade between United State and Russia. I can't tell you anything about the claimed Hillary Clinton export because it appears to be a fiction. I can tell you about a real trade in the other direction. This doesn't disprove the claim but demonstrates how silly it is. Certainly it wouldn't make sense to export a fungible commodity while importing it from the same country. Uranium is not simple to transport. | |
| Feb 21, 2017 at 11:30 | history | edited | Colonel Panic | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 17 characters in body
|
| Feb 21, 2017 at 9:58 | comment | added | KalleMP | This is useful for context. If Russia is selling Uranium to the USA in significant quantities from existing stockpiles it does rather imply that they do not NEED any more from the USA or elsewhere unless there is money to be made. To this end the uranium consumer is the USA and not Russia so them investing in extraction rights is more credible than them purchasing uranium. As to whether or not Hillary et.al. benefited from helping close the deal is open to debate and has a much higher likelihood of being true than the 20% of uranium leaving the USA for Russia. | |
| Feb 20, 2017 at 18:21 | history | undeleted | Sklivvz | ||
| Feb 20, 2017 at 15:14 | history | edited | Colonel Panic | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 17 characters in body
|
| Feb 20, 2017 at 12:10 | history | edited | Colonel Panic | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 82 characters in body
|
| Feb 20, 2017 at 12:02 | history | edited | Colonel Panic | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 137 characters in body
|
| Feb 19, 2017 at 10:07 | history | deleted | Sklivvz | via Vote | |
| Feb 19, 2017 at 10:07 | comment | added | Sklivvz | This does not seem to answer the question, removing. | |
| Feb 18, 2017 at 18:17 | comment | added | David Conrad | @jamesqf Well, since this answer doesn't really have anything to do with this question, that would be a good thing. | |
| Feb 18, 2017 at 18:16 | comment | added | jamesqf | @David Conrad: Doing that would disconnect that question from this, short-circuiting any meaningful discussion. | |
| Feb 18, 2017 at 8:42 | comment | added | David Conrad | @jamesqf If you think there's something about that program that should be addressed, ask a question about it. | |
| Feb 18, 2017 at 7:08 | comment | added | jamesqf | @jwodder: Most good questions raise follow-on issues like this, which should be addressed. | |
| Feb 18, 2017 at 5:28 | review | Low quality posts | |||
| Feb 19, 2017 at 10:11 | |||||
| Feb 18, 2017 at 5:24 | comment | added | jwodder | @jamesqf: The question was not about whether it was "OK" for one party to buy another's uranium; such a question would not be on-topic here. The question was about whether Hillary Clinton "gave" Russia uranium, which this so-called "answer" completely fails to address. | |
| Feb 17, 2017 at 18:53 | comment | added | jamesqf | @Jan Doggen: It does indirectly address the 20%. That is, if it was OK for the US to buy Russian uranium, why is it a problem for the Russians to buy American uranium - or rather, the mining rights for it? | |
| Feb 17, 2017 at 11:13 | comment | added | user22865 | This answer does not address the 20%. It also needs references. | |
| Feb 17, 2017 at 11:10 | review | First posts | |||
| Feb 17, 2017 at 11:13 | |||||
| Feb 17, 2017 at 11:06 | history | answered | Colonel Panic | CC BY-SA 3.0 |