Clinton Smear-book author admits he has no evidence for his wild claims

[Statistikhengst]

Clinton author No direct evidence of wrongdoing - CNNPolitics.com

The author of a book alleging some Clinton Foundation donors received favorable treatment while Hillary Clinton was secretary of state said Sunday that he did not have "direct evidence" of any impropriety, but argued the "pattern of behavior" required an investigation into Clinton's record.

Peter Schweizer claims in his forthcoming book, "Clinton Cash," that contributors to Clinton's family foundation had undue influence on American foreign policy. But when pressed by ABC "This Week" host George Stephanopoulos, Schweizer said the record is only suggestive, not definitive.

"The smoking gun is in the pattern of behavior," Schweizer said, comparing his findings to previous research he did on insider trading. "Most people that engage in criminal insider trading don't send an email and say, 'I've got inside information -- buy this stock.' "

In other words, he's got nothing and is making money off of a book. Fact free, innuendo-filled, Unicornland imaginings of an evil Hillary using her power as SOS to misuse funds and give preferential treatment yadayadayada.

In RW-butthurt land, this will play well.

In the real world, where people deal in actual facts, it will not.

I predict that this book will blow up in the author's face and make it even harder for the GOP to make a case against Hillary. No matter how hard they try, they just can't seem to get it right.

 

[Statistikhengst]

And here is the video:


ABC s Stephanopoulos Confronts Clinton Cash Author About Missing Facts And Overstatements Video Media Matters for America

 

[iamwhatiseem]

Wake up...no one ever said he did. In fact he doesn't "admit" this, as if hiding something, he states it right off the bat in the book.
The book is a collection of verifiable activities and H U G E coincidences. As well as a laundry list of donations that happen to coincide with votes and favors.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Wake up...no one ever said he did. In fact he doesn't "admit" this, as if hiding something, he states it right off the bat in the book.
The book is a collection of verifiable activities and H U G E coincidences. As well as a laundry list of donations that happen to coincide with votes and favors.

Activities that have been long recorded and are long public record.

So???

 

[iamwhatiseem]

Wake up...no one ever said he did. In fact he doesn't "admit" this, as if hiding something, he states it right off the bat in the book.
The book is a collection of verifiable activities and H U G E coincidences. As well as a laundry list of donations that happen to coincide with votes and favors.

Activities that have been long recorded and are long public record.

So???

Hilarious.
A guy writes a book about some mighty strange activities and colossal coincidences with foreign governments, several who happen to be enemies of the U.S., some mighty shady characters as well to their organization that spent less than 7% on actual charities and the rest on "operational functions"....on someone who happens to be running for President - and your response is "smear book"..."lies"...etc.
And when someone points out that the basis of the book is verifiable activity - you say "it has been public record so, so what?"

You can't make this shit up.

 

[gtopa1]

Even so, iam, there is an INDUSTRY of such shitty books on Bush so why the left think they will be immune from such is beyond me. Reid even blatantly LIED about some of Romney's tax returns and it still appears as lefty fiction. All part of the deal unfortunately.....though I do like this one.

Naughty, but amusing.

Greg

 

[gtopa1]

I wonder if this book is biased??

Greg

 

[defcon4]

Clinton author No direct evidence of wrongdoing - CNNPolitics.com

The author of a book alleging some Clinton Foundation donors received favorable treatment while Hillary Clinton was secretary of state said Sunday that he did not have "direct evidence" of any impropriety, but argued the "pattern of behavior" required an investigation into Clinton's record.

Peter Schweizer claims in his forthcoming book, "Clinton Cash," that contributors to Clinton's family foundation had undue influence on American foreign policy. But when pressed by ABC "This Week" host George Stephanopoulos, Schweizer said the record is only suggestive, not definitive.

"The smoking gun is in the pattern of behavior," Schweizer said, comparing his findings to previous research he did on insider trading. "Most people that engage in criminal insider trading don't send an email and say, 'I've got inside information -- buy this stock.' "

In other words, he's got nothing and is making money off of a book. Fact free, innuendo-filled, Unicornland imaginings of an evil Hillary using her power as SOS to misuse funds and give preferential treatment yadayadayada.

In RW-butthurt land, this will play well.

In the real world, where people deal in actual facts, it will not.

I predict that this book will blow up in the author's face and make it even harder for the GOP to make a case against Hillary. No matter how hard they try, they just can't seem to get it right.

You know it better. Did I over rate your intelligence?

 

[Toro]

I'm willing to give her the benefit of the doubt, but Clinton has two problems.

First, she wants to reference back to a time of prosperity under her husband's Presidency as a reason for people to vote for her. However, there were a lot of legitimate criticisms of some sleazy practices under Clinton of people buying influence, i.e. Marc Rich's wife donating half a million and her husband getting a pardon. So if we reference back to the 1990s, we also remember the bad as well as the good.

Second, even if she (or her husband) weren't influenced by the money, the optics are horrible.

The Clinton Foundation on Sunday offered its first response to an allegation that it failed to report $2.35 million in donations from a Canadian foundation run by the chairman of a uranium company who was seeking U.S. approval to sell his firm to the Russian nuclear agency.

In a statement, Clinton Foundation acting chief executive Maura Pally said the donations went to a separate Clinton charity, the Clinton Giustra Enterprise Partnership-Canada.

The donations came between 2008 and 2012 from the Fernwood Foundation, a family charity of Ian Telfer, chairman of the Canadian company Uranium One at the time of its 2009 sale. The company owned one of the largest uranium mines in the U.S. and therefore required approval of its sale from a U.S. committee consisting of the State Department and eight other departments. The panel let the deal proceed, and the company is now owned by Rosatom, Russia’s nuclear agency.

A spokesman for Hillary Clinton, who was secretary of state at the time, said she had no involvement in the matter and didn’t discuss it with the department official designated to decide the issue. The campaign issued a statement from the official saying he never heard from Mrs. Clinton on the matter.​

Clinton Foundation Provides Details on Canadian Donation - WSJ

Stuff like this is a problem for Clinton.

 

[JoeB131]

Wake up...no one ever said he did. In fact he doesn't "admit" this, as if hiding something, he states it right off the bat in the book.
The book is a collection of verifiable activities and H U G E coincidences. As well as a laundry list of donations that happen to coincide with votes and favors.

So i'm trying to get what the problem is, exactly. Congress could have objected to any of these activities, and didn't in most cases. In some cases, like the XL Pipeline, they were openly pushing for while Obama and Clinton were saying "Hey, wait a minute."

 

[JoeB131]

I'm willing to give her the benefit of the doubt, but Clinton has two problems.

First, she wants to reference back to a time of prosperity under her husband's Presidency as a reason for people to vote for her. However, there were a lot of legitimate criticisms of some sleazy practices under Clinton of people buying influence, i.e. Marc Rich's wife donating half a million and her husband getting a pardon. So if we reference back to the 1990s, we also remember the bad as well as the good.

Marc Rich got a pardon because the Israeli government pushed for him to get a pardon.

Stuff like this is a problem for Clinton.

I don't buy that. Frankly, I have seen the Wingnuts try to piece together these crazy conspiracy theories for 25 years now, and for a very long time, I even bought into them when I was a right-winger.

The kind of people who buy into these crazy theories are the ones who wouldn't vote for any Democrat, anyway.

 

[defcon4]

Wake up...no one ever said he did. In fact he doesn't "admit" this, as if hiding something, he states it right off the bat in the book.
The book is a collection of verifiable activities and H U G E coincidences. As well as a laundry list of donations that happen to coincide with votes and favors.

So i'm trying to get what the problem is, exactly. Congress could have objected to any of these activities, and didn't in most cases. In some cases, like the XL Pipeline, they were openly pushing for while Obama and Clinton were saying "Hey, wait a minute."

how the pipeline comes into the picture? Shifting focus? BTW the pipeline would create quite a few jobs

 

[ScienceRocks]

Wake up...no one ever said he did. In fact he doesn't "admit" this, as if hiding something, he states it right off the bat in the book.
The book is a collection of verifiable activities and H U G E coincidences. As well as a laundry list of donations that happen to coincide with votes and favors.

So i'm trying to get what the problem is, exactly. Congress could have objected to any of these activities, and didn't in most cases. In some cases, like the XL Pipeline, they were openly pushing for while Obama and Clinton were saying "Hey, wait a minute."

how the pipeline comes into the picture? Shifting focus? BTW the pipeline would create quite a few jobs

Oil is 19th and 20th century...Getting away from it is a good idea as we don't want to be caught when it finally runs out relying on it.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Loserterians...But, I buy into it too as Hillary is a corrupt bitch!

 

[JoeB131]

Kind of people?
Are you an Übermensch?

YOu know very well what i mean. If you don't, you are probably too stupid to be participating in a political discussion board.

Or one of the people I am talking about.

I'll make it simple for you. The kind of person who gets worked up over "Rich Person X donated to the Clinton Foundation and got an approval on a reasonable request to the government", is the kind of person who isn't going to vote for O'Malley or Warren or Webb if they are the nominee.

They are the kind of person who will cheer for a mutant like Cruz or Paul but will support Jeb Bush up until the moment he loses.

 

[Moonglow]

Clinton author No direct evidence of wrongdoing - CNNPolitics.com

The author of a book alleging some Clinton Foundation donors received favorable treatment while Hillary Clinton was secretary of state said Sunday that he did not have "direct evidence" of any impropriety, but argued the "pattern of behavior" required an investigation into Clinton's record.

Peter Schweizer claims in his forthcoming book, "Clinton Cash," that contributors to Clinton's family foundation had undue influence on American foreign policy. But when pressed by ABC "This Week" host George Stephanopoulos, Schweizer said the record is only suggestive, not definitive.

"The smoking gun is in the pattern of behavior," Schweizer said, comparing his findings to previous research he did on insider trading. "Most people that engage in criminal insider trading don't send an email and say, 'I've got inside information -- buy this stock.' "

In other words, he's got nothing and is making money off of a book. Fact free, innuendo-filled, Unicornland imaginings of an evil Hillary using her power as SOS to misuse funds and give preferential treatment yadayadayada.

In RW-butthurt land, this will play well.

In the real world, where people deal in actual facts, it will not.

I predict that this book will blow up in the author's face and make it even harder for the GOP to make a case against Hillary. No matter how hard they try, they just can't seem to get it right.

I was reading that last night, rather short sighted of the fellow, I suppose the clamor about Clinton hh failed to live up to expectations and the right just gave a shit load of free publicity to Hillary, showing the war on women is alive and well...

 

[defcon4]

Clinton author No direct evidence of wrongdoing - CNNPolitics.com

The author of a book alleging some Clinton Foundation donors received favorable treatment while Hillary Clinton was secretary of state said Sunday that he did not have "direct evidence" of any impropriety, but argued the "pattern of behavior" required an investigation into Clinton's record.

Peter Schweizer claims in his forthcoming book, "Clinton Cash," that contributors to Clinton's family foundation had undue influence on American foreign policy. But when pressed by ABC "This Week" host George Stephanopoulos, Schweizer said the record is only suggestive, not definitive.

"The smoking gun is in the pattern of behavior," Schweizer said, comparing his findings to previous research he did on insider trading. "Most people that engage in criminal insider trading don't send an email and say, 'I've got inside information -- buy this stock.' "

In other words, he's got nothing and is making money off of a book. Fact free, innuendo-filled, Unicornland imaginings of an evil Hillary using her power as SOS to misuse funds and give preferential treatment yadayadayada.

In RW-butthurt land, this will play well.

In the real world, where people deal in actual facts, it will not.

I predict that this book will blow up in the author's face and make it even harder for the GOP to make a case against Hillary. No matter how hard they try, they just can't seem to get it right.

I was reading that last night, rather short sighted of the fellow, I suppose the clamor about Clinton hh failed to live up to expectations and the right just gave a shit load of free publicity to Hillary, showing the war on women is alive and well...

WTF are you talking about? What is this shit anyway? You have wife, I have wife, I have daughter, I have mother you have mother, we are all have women in our lives. Come the fuck on, what the fuck are you talking about?

 

[jknowgood]

Wake up...no one ever said he did. In fact he doesn't "admit" this, as if hiding something, he states it right off the bat in the book.
The book is a collection of verifiable activities and H U G E coincidences. As well as a laundry list of donations that happen to coincide with votes and favors.

So i'm trying to get what the problem is, exactly. Congress could have objected to any of these activities, and didn't in most cases. In some cases, like the XL Pipeline, they were openly pushing for while Obama and Clinton were saying "Hey, wait a minute."

how the pipeline comes into the picture? Shifting focus? BTW the pipeline would create quite a few jobs

Oil is 19th and 20th century...Getting away from it is a good idea as we don't want to be caught when it finally runs out relying on it.

We have been running out of oil for over a hundred years now.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

I was reading that last night, rather short sighted of the fellow, I suppose the clamor about Clinton hh failed to live up to expectations and the right just gave a shit load of free publicity to Hillary, showing the war on women is alive and well...

Lot of supposing there...like I said, he never claimed he had "direct evidence"...that is not what the book is.
The book is a collection of colossal coincidences and "gifts and donations" by some damn shady people and foreign governments with uncanny timing to events related to at that time to current votes and those seeking contracts.
The book is barely out yet and you guys all line up calling it a farce, smear campaign etc.
In a word - bias.
And war on women? You mean like the unbelievable treatment of Palin by the left?

 

[jknowgood]

Clinton author No direct evidence of wrongdoing - CNNPolitics.com

The author of a book alleging some Clinton Foundation donors received favorable treatment while Hillary Clinton was secretary of state said Sunday that he did not have "direct evidence" of any impropriety, but argued the "pattern of behavior" required an investigation into Clinton's record.

Peter Schweizer claims in his forthcoming book, "Clinton Cash," that contributors to Clinton's family foundation had undue influence on American foreign policy. But when pressed by ABC "This Week" host George Stephanopoulos, Schweizer said the record is only suggestive, not definitive.

"The smoking gun is in the pattern of behavior," Schweizer said, comparing his findings to previous research he did on insider trading. "Most people that engage in criminal insider trading don't send an email and say, 'I've got inside information -- buy this stock.' "

In other words, he's got nothing and is making money off of a book. Fact free, innuendo-filled, Unicornland imaginings of an evil Hillary using her power as SOS to misuse funds and give preferential treatment yadayadayada.

In RW-butthurt land, this will play well.

In the real world, where people deal in actual facts, it will not.

I predict that this book will blow up in the author's face and make it even harder for the GOP to make a case against Hillary. No matter how hard they try, they just can't seem to get it right.

I was reading that last night, rather short sighted of the fellow, I suppose the clamor about Clinton hh failed to live up to expectations and the right just gave a shit load of free publicity to Hillary, showing the war on women is alive and well...

WTF are you talking about? What is this shit anyway? You have wife, I have wife, I have daughter, I have mother you have mother, we are all have women in our lives. Come the fuck on, what the fuck are you talking about?

Looney leftie talking points, although out dated. Idiots still use them.