in ,

Should we investigate the Russia uranium deal?

Screenshot from CBS News' YouTube video: Congress probes 2010 Russia uranium deal

An old controversy surrounding Hillary Clinton resurfaced when Congressman Devin Nunes, chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, announced they would be investigating a uranium deal that was reached with Russia during the Obama years. The Russian nuclear agency, called Rosatom, decided to purchase control of a company called Uranium One that had control of 20 percent of the United States’ uranium production capacity. Due to this, the Committee of Foreign Investment in United States, or CFIUS, and the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission had to sign off on the deal.

CFIUS has many cabinet members on the committee, including the Secretary of State. During the time the deal was being negotiated, Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State, and some of the people who profited from the eventual sale were Clinton Foundation donors. This being the case, should the Russia uranium deal be investigated, even though Clinton lost the election and no longer holds public office?

Those who feel we need to investigate this deal are concerned that there is possible bribery going on here. They feel that if a sitting Secretary of State received kickbacks from a foreign government for the sale of something as dangerous as uranium, then that was treason and has to be investigated. They also feel that the media is failing in its job of exposing such events, so Congress needs to step up and look into it. Finally, in many people’s opinion, there have been a lot of shady deals surrounding the Clintons, and as a result, their financial past should be scrutinized.

People who are against the idea of investigating the Russia deal argue that so many people had to sign off on it that the idea of bribing just one person is ridiculous. They also argue that even though Russia bought the mines for the uranium, they can’t transport it out of the U.S. , so to argue that it should be investigated because of danger to the country is a false argument. Also, there are those who believe that this investigation is an attempt to distract people from the several investigations surrounding the president and his ties to Russia.

The possibility of corruption in our government should always be taken seriously. If our leaders are being bribed by foreign powers, then the whole country is at risk. We therefore must consider allegations such as these, and take every step possible to prevent it. So, was there something shady about the Russia deal? The following video from CBS News shows Congressman Devin Nunes’ announcement of Congress’ probe into the 2010 Russia uranium deal:

The Issue

Should this deal involving Russia and our uranium production be investigated? Did Hillary Clinton take bribes through the Clinton Foundation to insure it would be approved, or is this just an attempt by the president’s political allies to distract us from his own problems with Russia?

In support of investigating the Russia deal

Those who feel the deal should be investigated say that any deal that could be the cause of bribery of our public officials needs to be looked into immediately.

In opposition to investigating the Russia deal

People who think we do not need to investigate the Russia deal say that this is a giant waste of time. It is a transparent attempt to distract the people from the president’s own problems.

Do you think the Russia uranium deal should be investigated?

Do we need the voting fraud commission?

Should national parks’ entrance fees be raised?

Facebook Comment