Here's some more "weaksauce" for you tough guy. Donald Trump inaccurately suggests Clinton got paid to approve Russia uranium deal http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...-trump-inaccurately-suggests-clinton-got-pai/ By Linda Qiu on Thursday, June 30th, 2016 at 2:21 p.m. In a major speech last week, the presumptive Republican nominee recited a number of claims from Clinton Cash, a 2015 bestselling investigation into donations to the Clinton Foundation. Among them: "Hillary Clinton’s State Department approved the transfer of 20 percent of America’s uranium holdings to Russia, while nine investors in the deal funneled $145 million to the Clinton Foundation — $145 million dollars." We wanted to vet this charge of Clinton engaging in pay-to-play politics. Trump’s claim is a reductive version of his source material’s findings and runs into several problems. First, the State Department did approve of Russia’s gradual takeover of a company with significant U.S. uranium assets, but it didn’t act unilaterally. State was one of nine government agencies, not to mention independent federal and state nuclear regulators, that had to sign off on the deal. Second, while nine people related to the company did donate to the Clinton Foundation, it’s unclear whether they were still involved in the company by the time of the Russian deal and stood to benefit from it. Third, most of their Clinton Foundation donations occurred before and during Hillary Clinton’s 2008 presidential bid, before she could have known she would become secretary of state. The bottom line: While the connections between the Clinton Foundation and the Russian deal may appear fishy, there’s simply no proof of any quid pro quo. Our ruling Trump said, "Hillary Clinton’s State Department approved the transfer of 20 percent of America’s uranium holdings to Russia, while nine investors in the deal funneled $145 million to the Clinton Foundation." There’s a grain of truth in this claim. Clinton’s State Department was one of nine government agencies to approve Russia’s acquisition of a company with U.S. uranium assets. Nine people related the company at some point in time donated to the Clinton Foundation, but we only found evidence that one did so "while" the Russian deal was occurring. The bulk of the $145 million in donations came two years before the deal. Trump is certainly within his right to question the indisputable links between Clinton Foundation donors and their ties to Uranium One, but Trump’s charge exaggerates the links. More importantly, his suggestion of a quid pro quo is unsubstantiated, as Schweizer the author of Clinton Cash himself has admitted. On the most basic level, Trump’s timeline is off. Most of the donations occurred before Clinton was named secretary of state. We rate Trump’s claim Mostly False.
Worth watching. <iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/UYYTssOZmi4" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
i'm not debating the depth and complication of house negro character. i'm simply using the accepted definitions and context to parallel how DNC leadership and it's members are treated and behave.
So let me get this straight. You don't deny that Clinton made a REALLY bad call here ....just that she was one of several making that call and meanwhile, she's the ONLY one who was Secretary of State at the time. She's also the only one who's spouse got a huge speaking fee, the only one with a long troubling history of this kind of activity, and the only one running for President of the United States. Got it. Does the phrase "The Buck Stops Here" mean anything to Democrats anymore? Politifact? And you're complaining about Breitbart. Pot meet kettle. You know what you get when you type in "politifact" in Bing? The first thing listed is: http://www.politifactbias.com/ Come on. At least I used the NYT article. Meanwhile, what about the OTHER 20 articles listed by the multiple left leaning media outlets? Haiti, Iran/Sweden, Africa, Columbia.... Hillary and Bill's theme song...(courtesy of the O'Jays) MONEY MONEY MONEY MONEY.......MONEY. It must be exhausting carrying all that water for Hillary. You need a break sweetie?
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Madeleine Albright just warned about rise of Russia with Trump. <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/DemsInPhilly?src=hash">#DemsInPhilly</a><br><br>4 years ago, she said Russia is NBD: <a href="https://t.co/DeBABAJqjr">https://t.co/DeBABAJqjr</a></p>— Frank Luntz (@FrankLuntz) <a href="https://twitter.com/FrankLuntz/status/758121044733341696">July 27, 2016</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">I hope he tells us the first time he meets every woman!</p>— GregGutfeld (@greggutfeld) <a href="https://twitter.com/greggutfeld/status/758123279878062081">July 27, 2016</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Uh... so you disagree that nine different agencies plus independent regulators had to sign off on the deal? First it was a lie from a spokesperson and now you just don't care because it doesn't fit in with your little diatribe **** fit? Come on! I mean... come on! I don't need any proof. Come on! Do I need a break? Aren't you the one posting Clinton hit pieces nonstop the last few days. When I debunk your hit piece you say come on! Eh... keep up the good work. Just go vote for Trump dude. You're obviously really angry and flipping out. You fit the Trump voter demo just fine. Go for it. I'm also a little confused by your liberal media diatribe. You cited how the "liberal media' used the word dark in their articles after the Trump speech to show the "liberal media" is in cahoots. Then you cite a New York Times piece, a liberal media source, that investigates Clinton and that's believable. But politifact showing your contention to be a lie isn't legit because it's a liberal media source. Why don't you make up your damn mind. You're all over the place dude. Like you've had a psychotic break with reality.
What...you giving up? Please defend the other 20 articles listed. Its fun to watch you flail about OVER AND OVER AND OVER defending these people who wouldn't piss on you to put out a fire. YOU KNOW THIS IS TRUE. Look how they treated your whole movement! I know when people like you and me are getting F...ed. So would you if you would just open your eyes. You can lead a horse to water....
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">This speech must be costing goldman sachs a bundle</p>— Matt Schlapp (@mschlapp) <a href="https://twitter.com/mschlapp/status/758123577468215297">July 27, 2016</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
4 years ago, Russia didn't intervene on behalf of the GOP's rotting orange topped colostomy bag of a nominee. Now, they are his, and he is yours. Vodka might kill the germs, but not the stench.
Bill Clinton is a gawd damn expert.. Bill Clinton is reading from a prompter but he has me thinking we by a fire, sitting in a recliner.
Boom. Headshot. Mitt >>> Barack. Huge mistake to elect Obama - history will not look back kindly on Obama's time in office.
I randomly picked ONE article and completely debunked what you claimed. How lucky was that? CRAZY lucky. It's easy for you guys to throw **** on the wall and then ask me to clean up your lies and distortions. Classic tactic. I researched your claim and it proved to be false. I didn't whine and cry like you're doing. I checked it out with facts. Facts actually in the article you cited that you didn't even read. I have repeatedly called Hillary Clinton shady as hell and yet her policies most closely represent what's important to me. You can throw a tantrum but I'm an adult and I'm ready to make the best choice for me and my family. I suggest you evaluate the issues without Breitbart's help and make your own decision.
Completely debunked. LOL. You haven't addressed the danger this specific issue put us in. You haven't addressed the timing or other reason for HUGE speaking fees. You haven't addressed any of the other shady as hell (your words) dealings she had as Secretary of State and the Clinton Foundation. Completely debunked only in the mid of a kool aid drinker. Research. That's rich. You cherry picked 1 fact while ignoring EVERY other part of the 4000 word article. You give EVERY benefit of the doubt to a person who by your OWN WORDS BELOW you admit to being "shady as hell". Give me a break. Yep. Again, the ends justify the means mentality. The same one the Clinton's use to justify their horrible, corrupt choices. I've made my decision. I will never knowingly support anyone that corrupt for any reason. Ever.
Oh they are proud to have him, just by a lot of certain posters posts in this thread it's very clear that they are rooting for Trump.
You knowingly support Donald J. Trump for President of the United States of America. That is embarrassing. For you.
