CNN’s Clinton Cash ‘Fact-Check’ Ends in Embarrassment

[unbound]

lol


This is weak even by Breitbart's extremely low standards. How did they have egg on their faces? Nothing in the article provides any information to back up that claim.

I assume it is in reference to one of the old tired BS stories created by Peter Schweizer (Breitbart News Senior Editor-at-Large). So Breitbart is making hay based on a long-debunked book written by one of their own senior editors. Anyone see a conflict of interest here? Nah, Republicans are only about things like accountability and responsibility for non-Republicans.

From more than a year ago - http://www.factcheck.org/2015/04/no-...-uranium-deal/

[Cthulhu 2020]

You are living in deep denial if you think people are really paying the Clintons hundreds of thousands of dollars per hour because they make such lovely speeches.

Who said that? All I'm saying is that Trump is far far worse, and there's so many willing to plug their ears about Trump's misdeeds and crimes then lecture about Clinton.

[Venant]

Really? She pushed for the civil war in Syria and Libya? It wasn't the oppressive dictators that pushed for the civil war? Also, just in case you forgot, Trump was also for it before he was against it.

https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/emailid/18328

Just read the original document directly from wikileaks. The media has either spun this story or is refusing to report on it. Furthermore, there is a huge difference between a citizen holding an opinion (based on what limited information that is available to the public), and the Secretary of State actively pushing for a war.

In her personal emails, Clinton makes it clear in her own words that she is a neocon who would have fit nicely into the Bush administration cadre.

- - - Updated - - -

Who said that? All I'm saying is that Trump is far far worse, and there's so many willing to plug their ears about Trump's misdeeds and crimes then lecture about Clinton.

How is Trump worse? Is he secretly a prolific mass murderer? Clinton is a neocon, and she has actively engaged in the neocon policy of 'regime change', a policy that has caused hundreds of thousands of deaths and the massive influx of refugees into the EU.

[Edge-]

https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/emailid/18328

And this is written by? No name in the link for the author and this is the type of report a staffer would generally be sending to Hillary (who would get an executive summary from another staffer). I don't see anything that indicates that Hillary Clinton authored this email or that it reflects her opinions, just that it exists in her inbox.

[Alydael]

Who said that? All I'm saying is that Trump is far far worse, and there's so many willing to plug their ears about Trump's misdeeds and crimes then lecture about Clinton.

But Trump never "held office." He never voted on bills or was responsible for our security (as Hillary was as Sec under Obama). That is a conflict of interests and that is the problem.

- - - Updated - - -

And this is written by? No name in the link for the author and this is the type of report a staffer would generally be sending to Hillary (who would get an executive summary from another staffer). I don't see anything that indicates that Hillary Clinton authored this email or that it reflects her opinions, just that it exists in her inbox.

I guess the names have to be removed because the case is ongoing. Wikileaks accessed her server (despite her "security" ), so they would know if this was an e-mail in the "sent" folder or the "received" folder. Even if it was in the "sent" folder, you still couldn't prove she sent it. You would need video of her actually typing it and hitting send to "prove" that beyond a doubt. If wikileaks hacked her server, than any hacker or foreign government could have- so God knows who authorede or sent. This is why the "private" server she used is such a problem/ risk to security.

It fits the Obama/Dem narrative on Syria though. They want Assad out, Russia wants him to stay.

[Venant]

don't see anything that indicates that Hillary Clinton authored this email or that it reflects her opinions

Hillary Clinton's agenda of pushing for 'regime change' is well documented.

[Alydael]

https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/emailid/18328

Just read the original document directly from wikileaks. The media has either spun this story or is refusing to report on it. Furthermore, there is a huge difference between a citizen holding an opinion (based on what limited information that is available to the public), and the Secretary of State actively pushing for a war.

In her personal emails, Clinton makes it clear in her own words that she is a neocon who would have fit nicely into the Bush administration cadre.

- - - Updated - - -



How is Trump worse? Is he secretly a prolific mass murderer? Clinton is a neocon, and she has actively engaged in the neocon policy of 'regime change', a policy that has caused hundreds of thousands of deaths and the massive influx of refugees into the EU.

Yeah, Hillary and Obama bombed out Libya without congressional approval. How many Libyans died? Hillary and Obama own that and it is on record, so all the Hillary supporters can not claim it is a conspiracy. Nothing Trump has ever done even remotely compares to that. Even Bush got Congressional approval for the Iraq invasion (and Hillary voted yes on that too, so she is "Bushes Buddy")

If I was Trump, I would use the Libya thing and her "yes" vote on Bushes' Iraq invasion. I wouldn't even bother with the e-mails, the Russian uranium thing, the Clintoln foundation/slushfund, the speaking dollars from homophobic/ sexist countries that abuse women and gay/transgender (Wow! never realized how much baggage she has until I typed it out, there is more but I will stop here..... go vote for her if you want more of all this crap).

[Bodakane]

If trump had done this, it would have been part of Art Of The Deal book, and the TrumpHumpers would be touting it as qualifications for POTUS.

[Tempguy]

A sad state of affairs when the defense of the next countries leader boils down to "well everyone is just as bad."

[Venant]

If trump had done this, it would have been part of Art Of The Deal book, and the TrumpHumpers would be touting it as qualifications for POTUS.

This doesn't even qualify as a coherent statement. Are you attempting to defend Clinton's actions by resorting to doublethink? Do all Clinton supporters have a daily two minutes of hate where they stare at a picture of Donald Trump?

[Luxxor]

So basically, Trump was wrong, and Breitbart does not disappoint in continuing to be the biggest piece of shit on the internet.

Sure sucks when facts dont support your narrative, huh Batty?

[Cthulhu 2020]

But Trump never "held office." He never voted on bills or was responsible for our security (as Hillary was as Sec under Obama). That is a conflict of interests and that is the problem.

He lies constantly to investors and business partners, he utilizes cheap illegal immigrant labor, he's shipped jobs overseas to just about every other country but the US, in other countries his companies use unethical hiring practices, he's received money from pretty much all of our enemy regimes. Trump, in addition to being unethical, has huge conflicts of interest. Trump doesn't have a record in politics, but if you think he's suddenly going to become a different person than he is if he gets into office, I'm going to laugh at you.

"Well he doesn't have a history in politics of doing things," is a pretty shitty excuse to think his record as a businessman isn't going to transfer over into his political career.

[Breccia]

CNN Money’s “fact-checkers” --

Or you could use FactCheck.

The transfer in question was Russia buying Uranium One, a privately held company which is [i[based in Canada[/i]. At the time of the sale, Clinton had a role that could have let her flag the sale as unwanted (as did eight other people, such as the Treasurer and head of Homeland Security, none of whom objected, none of whom were bribed), but had zero power to stop the sale herself. Only the President has that power. Even FOX News (yes, that FOX) questioned whether the connection to the donations was anything other than conjecture.

Clinton couldn't have stopped the sale even if she wanted to. Any attempt to bribe her was a waste of their money, especially considering the timeline (she was a Senator when the vast bulk of the donations were made). And again, they didn't bribe any of the other eight people, who also didn't have veto power, but none of them made a stink about it either. Quite frankly, if the head of US Homeland Security doesn't have a problem with Russia buying uranium, I'm not sure why the Secretary of State would, either. Think about it. If you were going to so bribe one of the nine members of a committee with equal roles, why would you do so with such blatant obviousness, but stiff the other eight? Wouldn't any one of them object out of either concern about blatant bribery or just plain old spite to Russia? If you wanted to beat the San Fransisco Giants, would you throw $100,000 at the third baseman in full view of the other players and assume "that's good enough"?

Oh and...the NYT article you linked yourself says "Whether the donations played any role in the approval of the uranium deal is unknown" and, yes, confirms the timeline of the donations -- the biggest of which, $31 million and a "pledge" of $100 million more (did that even happen?) -- was on Jan 31, 2008. So either this donation was a hell of a gamble, or a "thank you" for former President Bill Clinton for helping sweet talk a deal made in 2005 -- which had nothing to do with Russia and Bill Clinton had zero official capacity in -- or maybe a rich Canadian businessman well-known for large charitable donations happened to like giving money to a nonprofit that gets AIDS medicine to poor children around the world.

Do I like Russia having all that plutonium? No. But a logical examination of the evidence we actually have doesn't paint this as a very good bribery attempt to make that happen. If anything, it almost seems the reverse -- a Canadian "bribing" the Clintons for getting uranium out of a former Soviet state.

[Krastyn]

Trump supporters criticizing Clinton for this is a bit like a murderer criticizing a shop lifter.

That may be true. I'm not a Trump supporter though.

- - - Updated - - -

Simply because nothing has been shown to be the case. While we have proof of Trump corruption with his "Trump Foundation". Since he used it to buy off the Florida AG to drop her case against him.

So you're changing your statement from an absolute, to "well, nothing is proven, so there is no way it can happen".

Keep your head in the sand.

- - - Updated - - -

Says the guy defending Trump, lol. I mean he could walk up to your mother, shoot her in the face, and you would probably still vote for him. Simply because Hillary MIGHT be a criminal. Yet, of the 2, which one is currently under investigation in many states, has 2 lawsuits against them, 1 criminal and 1 civil. Then he criticized his judge, which NO ONE should ever do. Its a good way to guarantee that they fuck you in the ass for the MAXIMUM penalty.

Just to be clear here, I'm Canadian, and think both candidates are shit. I just find it hilarious that the defense of the accusations isn't arguing that they're false. It's people like you saying "Trump is way worse!". I never brought Trump up. You're deflecting.

The fact that so many people here seem to think that individuals and corporations are donating millions out of pure benevolence and not for influence or other agendas is astounding.

[Alydael]

He lies constantly to investors and business partners, he utilizes cheap illegal immigrant labor, he's shipped jobs overseas to just about every other country but the US, in other countries his companies use unethical hiring practices, he's received money from pretty much all of our enemy regimes. Trump, in addition to being unethical, has huge conflicts of interest. Trump doesn't have a record in politics, but if you think he's suddenly going to become a different person than he is if he gets into office, I'm going to laugh at you.

"Well he doesn't have a history in politics of doing things," is a pretty shitty excuse to think his record as a businessman isn't going to transfer over into his political career.

I never said he was a saint, but you really can't compare lying to investors to bombing a country (without congressional approval).

[Bodakane]

This doesn't even qualify as a coherent statement. Are you attempting to defend Clinton's actions by resorting to doublethink? Do all Clinton supporters have a daily two minutes of hate where they stare at a picture of Donald Trump?

If its not coherent....why are you triggered?

[tj119]

Today on MMO-C GOT News: Politicians are crooked pieces of shit. And after our commercial break, man breaks window to save 6 chihuahua puppies in hot car! Stay tuned.

[Spectral]

Hillary Clinton's agenda of pushing for 'regime change' is well documented.

There's also something a bit unsavory about gloating over a nation's former leader being raped to death with a bayonet, isn't there?