ADVERTISEMENT

Shep Smith Fact Checks Uranium One. Fox Viewers Demand his ouster

just joshing...you opened yourself up wide for it... (I didn't follow the link, but how many people are actually asking for Shepard's ouster, and so ...)

Ah ok.

Obviously I have bias....everyone does. But I have no interest in reading/watching things that only confirm my bias. If anything, I'm kind of the opposite....most of my media consumption comes from positions opposite of my own.
 
Ah ok.

Obviously I have bias....everyone does. But I have no interest in reading/watching things that only confirm my bias. If anything, I'm kind of the opposite....most of my media consumption comes from positions opposite of my own.
Yeah, I know. I've noticed that you're one the least partisan around here. ;)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Joe_Hoopsier
If this doesn't prove the point that cable news viewers don't want information....but instead crave bias confirmation....I don't know what does.


https://www.rawstory.com/2017/11/he...s-up-right-wing-conspiracy-about-uranium-one/

Nothing says "bullshit" like the term "fact check".

Shep Smith is by in large a good reporter. But he is a little off here. The focus of the fact check is not Obama's final approval of the Uranium One deal after the committee of 9 supported it. The important story has to do with how the transaction was born and nurtured and how it ever got to the point that it became ripe for US government approval.

We know that the Russians involved were deeply involved in bribery, racketeering and corruption in the months and years leading up to the deal.

We know that the US state department had lent a helping hand to the players in getting the deal put together.

We know that Hillary's hand-picked surrogate, Jose Fernandez, career wagon was hitched to the Hillary campaign and her seemingly unobstructed path to the White House.

We know that Bill got one-half million dollars for a single speech paid by people interested in the transaction.

We know that the Clinton Foundation did what it always does, raked in considerable dough from foreign governments and Russian entities interested in this transaction.

We know that the DOJ investigation into the Russian agency corruption was kept secret and then quashed, at at time when a little sunlight might have caused this deal to fail. (Didn't somebody say that sunlight is good for democracy).

So Shep Smith's "fact check" that Hillary didn't personally approve the deal is correct. But that fact, of course, isn't relevant to the the corruption that was inextricably intertwined with the deal, who benefited from the corruption, or whether Hillary influenced the deal in any way.
 
Nothing says "bullshit" like the term "fact check".

Shep Smith is by in large a good reporter. But he is a little off here. The focus of the fact check is not Obama's final approval of the Uranium One deal after the committee of 9 supported it. The important story has to do with how the transaction was born and nurtured and how it ever got to the point that it became ripe for US government approval.

We know that the Russians involved were deeply involved in bribery, racketeering and corruption in the months and years leading up to the deal.

We know that the US state department had lent a helping hand to the players in getting the deal put together.

We know that Hillary's hand-picked surrogate, Jose Fernandez, career wagon was hitched to the Hillary campaign and her seemingly unobstructed path to the White House.

We know that Bill got one-half million dollars for a single speech paid by people interested in the transaction.

We know that the Clinton Foundation did what it always does, raked in considerable dough from foreign governments and Russian entities interested in this transaction.

We know that the DOJ investigation into the Russian agency corruption was kept secret and then quashed, at at time when a little sunlight might have caused this deal to fail. (Didn't somebody say that sunlight is good for democracy).

So Shep Smith's "fact check" that Hillary didn't personally approve the deal is correct. But that fact, of course, isn't relevant to the the corruption that was inextricably intertwined with the deal, who benefited from the corruption, or whether Hillary influenced the deal in any way.

All of that is OK, Russia provides our rocketso_O.
 
Nothing says "bullshit" like the term "fact check".

Shep Smith is by in large a good reporter. But he is a little off here. The focus of the fact check is not Obama's final approval of the Uranium One deal after the committee of 9 supported it. The important story has to do with how the transaction was born and nurtured and how it ever got to the point that it became ripe for US government approval.

We know that the Russians involved were deeply involved in bribery, racketeering and corruption in the months and years leading up to the deal.

We know that the US state department had lent a helping hand to the players in getting the deal put together.

We know that Hillary's hand-picked surrogate, Jose Fernandez, career wagon was hitched to the Hillary campaign and her seemingly unobstructed path to the White House.

We know that Bill got one-half million dollars for a single speech paid by people interested in the transaction.

We know that the Clinton Foundation did what it always does, raked in considerable dough from foreign governments and Russian entities interested in this transaction.

We know that the DOJ investigation into the Russian agency corruption was kept secret and then quashed, at at time when a little sunlight might have caused this deal to fail. (Didn't somebody say that sunlight is good for democracy).

So Shep Smith's "fact check" that Hillary didn't personally approve the deal is correct. But that fact, of course, isn't relevant to the the corruption that was inextricably intertwined with the deal, who benefited from the corruption, or whether Hillary influenced the deal in any way.
Like a moth to a flame.
 
Nothing says "bullshit" like the term "fact check".

Shep Smith is by in large a good reporter. But he is a little off here. The focus of the fact check is not Obama's final approval of the Uranium One deal after the committee of 9 supported it. The important story has to do with how the transaction was born and nurtured and how it ever got to the point that it became ripe for US government approval.

We know that the Russians involved were deeply involved in bribery, racketeering and corruption in the months and years leading up to the deal.

We know that the US state department had lent a helping hand to the players in getting the deal put together.

We know that Hillary's hand-picked surrogate, Jose Fernandez, career wagon was hitched to the Hillary campaign and her seemingly unobstructed path to the White House.

We know that Bill got one-half million dollars for a single speech paid by people interested in the transaction.

We know that the Clinton Foundation did what it always does, raked in considerable dough from foreign governments and Russian entities interested in this transaction.

We know that the DOJ investigation into the Russian agency corruption was kept secret and then quashed, at at time when a little sunlight might have caused this deal to fail. (Didn't somebody say that sunlight is good for democracy).

So Shep Smith's "fact check" that Hillary didn't personally approve the deal is correct. But that fact, of course, isn't relevant to the the corruption that was inextricably intertwined with the deal, who benefited from the corruption, or whether Hillary influenced the deal in any way.


No kidding. And that's why the FBI investigated this exact issue in 2015 after the Clinton Cash book came out. Their career public corruption folks exhausted their investigation and came up with nothing.

Now years later it needs to be dug up, because?.?.?
 
heir career public corruption folks exhausted their investigation and came up with nothing.

LOL. The Russians are straight arrow and not corrupt? LOL. Then why did Obama, Holder, and Lynch keep it under wraps and put a gag order on their under cover guy?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 76-1
LOL. The Russians are straight arrow and not corrupt? LOL. Then why did Obama, Holder, and Lynch keep it under wraps and put a gag order on their under cover guy?

I have no clue what you are talking about...but Clinton derangement syndrome is not my specialty. I do have general faith with the career DOJ and career FBI people.

Like Trump/Russia...when/if something comes out from them, I'd be interested. Until then, it's all too conspiratorial for me to hold much interest.
 
  • Like
Reactions: sglowrider
Nothing says "bullshit" like the term "fact check".

Shep Smith is by in large a good reporter. But he is a little off here. The focus of the fact check is not Obama's final approval of the Uranium One deal after the committee of 9 supported it. The important story has to do with how the transaction was born and nurtured and how it ever got to the point that it became ripe for US government approval.

We know that the Russians involved were deeply involved in bribery, racketeering and corruption in the months and years leading up to the deal.

We know that the US state department had lent a helping hand to the players in getting the deal put together.

We know that Hillary's hand-picked surrogate, Jose Fernandez, career wagon was hitched to the Hillary campaign and her seemingly unobstructed path to the White House.

We know that Bill got one-half million dollars for a single speech paid by people interested in the transaction.

We know that the Clinton Foundation did what it always does, raked in considerable dough from foreign governments and Russian entities interested in this transaction.

We know that the DOJ investigation into the Russian agency corruption was kept secret and then quashed, at at time when a little sunlight might have caused this deal to fail. (Didn't somebody say that sunlight is good for democracy).

So Shep Smith's "fact check" that Hillary didn't personally approve the deal is correct. But that fact, of course, isn't relevant to the the corruption that was inextricably intertwined with the deal, who benefited from the corruption, or whether Hillary influenced the deal in any way.

"We know that the Clinton Foundation did what it always does, raked in considerable dough from foreign governments and Russian entities interested in this transaction."

I'm not sure we know this at all,although that is what Schweitzer seems to have his "Clinton Cash" reading minions believing.I'm curious how much total $$ you feel is involved here,and how much of it you believe came from "Russian interests"?The number I've heard is $145 Million,with $135 Million of that coming from Frank Giustra. I'm also wondering when exactly you feel all of this $$ from folks "interested in this transaction" supposedly flowed into the CF coffers?

The problem with all of these "Russian interest" claims is that google exists,and facts are facts.The main contributor all along is Giustra (who is Canadian not Russian.)Shep mentions that Giustra sold his company in 2007,but fails to mention that 2007 was also when Giustra pledged his donation of $135 Million,which may have come from the sale of his interests in his company to the entity which became Uranium One...

FRIDAY
JUL 06
2007
Press Release: Lundin Group Commits $100 Million to Clinton Giustra Sustainable Growth Initiative
New York
PRESS RELEASE
Vancouver's Lundin Group Commits $100 Million to Clinton Giustra Sustainable Growth Initiative.

Vancouver-based Lundin for Africa, the philanthropic arm of the Lundin Group of Companies, has pledged $100 million to the Clinton Foundation's recently announced Clinton Giustra Sustainable Growth Initiative (CGSGI), which is aimed at alleviating poverty and building sustainable local economies in developing countries. The Lundin for Africa commitment will be aimed, in large part, at approved projects in Africa, where the Lundin Group has significant mining, oil and gas interests.

The contribution, announced today by former President Bill Clinton, matches the $100 million individual donations made by Canadian mining financier Frank Giustra and Mexican businessman Carlos Slim when the initiative was launched last month in New York.

"When Frank Giustra brought forward the idea of having the world's mining sector pull together in support of alleviating poverty and building sustainable local economies in developing countries, I knew it would only succeed if the industry was serious about being actively involved," said President Clinton. "Today's generous support by the Lundin Group is to be applauded because it demonstrates the potential of this global initiative to capture the imagination and support of the mining sector. The fact that more and more companies are joining us gives me confidence that while we've only just begun, we're headed in the right direction."

Giustra added that he expects the CGSGI to complement the aid work Lundin for Africa is already carrying out in five African countries."

https://www.clintonfoundation.org/m...illion-to-clinton-giustra-sustainable-gr.html

Now I haven't read "Clinton Cash",but something tells me none of this info is enclosed in Schweitzer's description of "Uranium One".Just the cynic in me,I guess...

So I guess I'm having a problem finding exactly where the corruption in this story is? I'm not one of those that discounts the actual charitable intentions of the CF,and I think the notion that the CF is some sort of nefarious plot to line the Clinton's personal coffers is just more of the right wing nut paranoid delusions.Mainly because it seems like such unecessary overkill,from 2 people who showed a genuine propensity for helping others dating back to their entry into politics in the first place.

The fact that they have seemingly been able to transfer that paranoia to some folks I would otherwise consider "rationale" strikes me as a testament of how cunning some of these Breitbart types are.IIRC when HRC left Govt she had a pretty high approval rating,and the fact that the apparatus was able thru Benghazi and other manufactured
"Clinton misdeeds" to drive that favorable rating into the ground would have Lee Atwater grinning from ear to ear.

Ironically some of the cynicism related to the charitable nature of the CF seems to revolve around the fact that the Trump F is such a fraudulent entity that it gives even legitimate charities a bad name.I'd argue that the Clintons have a much more distinguished record of actually helping people,but obviously amidst the anti-Clinton fervor that was successfully stirred up those accomplishments are for a large number of folks pretty easy to deny.
 
Last edited:
No kidding. And that's why the FBI investigated this exact issue in 2015 after the Clinton Cash book came out. Their career public corruption folks exhausted their investigation and came up with nothing.

Now years later it needs to be dug up, because?.?.?

Because Benghazi has been beaten to death and cleared, and Hillary is the right’s favorite boogeyman ;)

Why else? The right needs something to distract forok the Trunp chit show/Roy Moore saga/failure to govern when in complete control of the levers of government.

Quite simply, it’s whataboutism yet again. No surprise that CO is all over it. He’s perfected the art.

Lock her up!!! We’re a few steps away from becoming a true banana republic with this administration. Trump NEEDS enemies to feel better about himself, and he’s always got good ‘ole Hillary to attack.

I believe Sessions will come back and say that his department looked into it, and there’s nothing there. Don’t forget that Trump has punked him repeatedly, and this is a chance to show that his department won’t be pushed into things at the President’s insistence alone. To actually open up an investigation about something that has already been investigated (and cleared by the FBI, you know, the federal bureau of INVESTIGATION) would be very bad precedent given the circumstances. Especially after all the time and money wasted on the fruitless Benghazi situation.

FWIW, I have no illusions that the Clintons aren’t shady. I’ve often stated that they have been, and are. This possible probe is about criminal charges, which almost certainly couldn’t be proven, given that the FBI already checked it out and moved on already. Even if they did open up a probe, what would be the point if it? Hillary is buried as a political candidate. And rightly so. She snatched defeat from the jaws of victory, and she needs to go away now. That is, if the right will let her. I don’t think they ever will.
 
  • Like
Reactions: sglowrider
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT