Fact Checking Donald Trump's Many Lies About Hillary Clinton

[Juan de Fuca]

Looks like Donald Trump lied like the devil to cast a shadow upon Hillary Clinton. Too bad the major news networks weren't having any of it. FACT: You cannot lie to the American people without being caught in that lie.

"CLAIM: "Now, because I have pointed out why [TPP] would be such a disastrous deal, she is pretending that she is against it. She has even deleted this record of total support from her book."

The facts: Clinton walked back her support for the Trans-Pacific Partnership last October — saying the final deal wasn't what she'd hoped for when she advocated for it during negotiations as Secretary of State. In April, several months before she reversed course on the deal, some passages supporting the partnership were edited out of the paperback version of her book, "Hard Choices." The cuts were part of 96 pages of cuts made to account for the paperback's smaller size, according to a publisher's note. But not all of them were cut: there's still two pages praising the deal, or at least the idea of it. "It's safe to say that the TPP won't be perfect - no deal negotiated among a dozen countries ever will be — but its higher standards, if implemented and enforced, should benefit American businesses and workers," she wrote.

Trump has adamantly opposed TPP since before his campaign began; there's no indication that his remarks changed her mind."

CLAIM: Hillary Clinton "is a world class liar"

The facts: According to PolitiFact, 59% of Trump's checked claims have been deemed false or "Pants on Fire" false, versus 12% for Clinton.

Donald Trump:

• True: 2%
• Mostly True: 7%
• Half True: 15%
• Mostly False: 17%
• False: 40%
• Pants on Fire: 19%

Hillary Clinton:

• True: 23%
• Mostly True: 28%
• Half True: 21%
• Mostly False: 15%
• False: 11%
• Pants on Fire: 1%

CLAIM: "It all started with her bad judgment in supporting the War in Iraq in the first place. Though I was not in government service, I was among the earliest to criticize the rush to war, and yes, even before the war ever started."

The facts: Politifact ranks this oft-repeated claim False. More: In September 2002, Trump said he supported the Iraq invasion during an interview with Howard Stern. Then, in September 2003 — several months after the invasion, he said "It wasn't a mistake to fight terrorism and fight it hard, and I guess maybe if I had to do it, I would have fought terrorism but not necessarily Iraq."

CLAIM: "Her server was easily hacked by foreign governments — perhaps even by her financial backers in Communist China — putting all of America in danger."

The facts: U.S. officials have told NBC News that there is no evidence of penetration of the servers by hackers, although there is evidence of phishing attempts. Clinton's campaign says that there is no evidence that her private server was ever hacked.

CLAIM: "Hillary Clinton took up to $25 million from Saudi Arabia, where being gay is also punishable by death. Hillary took millions from Kuwait, Qatar, Oman and many other countries that horribly abuse women and LGBT citizens."

As of March 2016, records showed that Saudi Arabia has donated between $10 million and $25 million to the foundation. Here's a list of everyone who has ever donated to the Clinton Foundation — as provided by the Clinton Foundation website.

This list is broken into the following categories:

• Greater than $25 million (7 donors, including Clinton Giustra Enterprise Partnership (Canada) & Frank Giustra, The Radcliffe Foundation)
• $10 to $25 million (11 donors, including Saudi Arabia & Norway)
• $5 to $10 million (17 donors, including Australia, Netherlands, Kuwait & a prominent Saudi businessman)
• $1 to $5 million (133 donors, including Qatar, Oman, UAE)

By law, the foundation does not have to release the specific donors and amounts. They are required to give the list to the IRS but that info is redacted when released to the public — though the Clinton Foundation COULD release if it desired.


Many more Trump lies at the link: Fact-Checking Trump's Speech

 

[Syriusly]

Your post is of course correct.

But Trumpster's don't care about what he says- only that he is Trump.

He can say anything- do anything- as even he said

"I could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn't lose voters," Trump said at a campaign rally here.

Trumpster's don't care what Trump says or does- they only care about the image they have of Trump.

 

[SuperDemocrat]

What is the democratic party going to tell their union friends now that they support free-trade? It just seems like the democratic party takes whatever position is opposite of their opponents for no other reason than that. It is very fucking childish sometimes but it is the reality.

 

[Juan de Fuca]

Your post is of course correct.

But Trumpster's don't care about what he says- only that he is Trump.

He can say anything- do anything- as even he said

"I could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn't lose voters," Trump said at a campaign rally here.

Trumpster's don't care what Trump says or does- they only care about the image they have of Trump.

What can I say? Donald Trump is a parasite who stumbled into the perfect host.

 

[Boss]

Looks like Donald Trump lied like the devil to cast a shadow upon Hillary Clinton. Too bad the major news networks weren't having any of it. FACT: You cannot lie to the American people without being caught in that lie.

"CLAIM: "Now, because I have pointed out why [TPP] would be such a disastrous deal, she is pretending that she is against it. She has even deleted this record of total support from her book."

The facts: Clinton walked back her support for the Trans-Pacific Partnership last October — saying the final deal wasn't what she'd hoped for when she advocated for it during negotiations as Secretary of State. In April, several months before she reversed course on the deal, some passages supporting the partnership were edited out of the paperback version of her book, "Hard Choices." The cuts were part of 96 pages of cuts made to account for the paperback's smaller size, according to a publisher's note. But not all of them were cut: there's still two pages praising the deal, or at least the idea of it. "It's safe to say that the TPP won't be perfect - no deal negotiated among a dozen countries ever will be — but its higher standards, if implemented and enforced, should benefit American businesses and workers," she wrote.

Trump has adamantly opposed TPP since before his campaign began; there's no indication that his remarks changed her mind."

CLAIM: Hillary Clinton "is a world class liar"

The facts: According to PolitiFact, 59% of Trump's checked claims have been deemed false or "Pants on Fire" false, versus 12% for Clinton.

Donald Trump:

• True: 2%
• Mostly True: 7%
• Half True: 15%
• Mostly False: 17%
• False: 40%
• Pants on Fire: 19%

Hillary Clinton:

• True: 23%
• Mostly True: 28%
• Half True: 21%
• Mostly False: 15%
• False: 11%
• Pants on Fire: 1%

CLAIM: "It all started with her bad judgment in supporting the War in Iraq in the first place. Though I was not in government service, I was among the earliest to criticize the rush to war, and yes, even before the war ever started."

The facts: Politifact ranks this oft-repeated claim False. More: In September 2002, Trump said he supported the Iraq invasion during an interview with Howard Stern. Then, in September 2003 — several months after the invasion, he said "It wasn't a mistake to fight terrorism and fight it hard, and I guess maybe if I had to do it, I would have fought terrorism but not necessarily Iraq."

CLAIM: "Her server was easily hacked by foreign governments — perhaps even by her financial backers in Communist China — putting all of America in danger."

The facts: U.S. officials have told NBC News that there is no evidence of penetration of the servers by hackers, although there is evidence of phishing attempts. Clinton's campaign says that there is no evidence that her private server was ever hacked.

CLAIM: "Hillary Clinton took up to $25 million from Saudi Arabia, where being gay is also punishable by death. Hillary took millions from Kuwait, Qatar, Oman and many other countries that horribly abuse women and LGBT citizens."

As of March 2016, records showed that Saudi Arabia has donated between $10 million and $25 million to the foundation. Here's a list of everyone who has ever donated to the Clinton Foundation — as provided by the Clinton Foundation website.

This list is broken into the following categories:

• Greater than $25 million (7 donors, including Clinton Giustra Enterprise Partnership (Canada) & Frank Giustra, The Radcliffe Foundation)
• $10 to $25 million (11 donors, including Saudi Arabia & Norway)
• $5 to $10 million (17 donors, including Australia, Netherlands, Kuwait & a prominent Saudi businessman)
• $1 to $5 million (133 donors, including Qatar, Oman, UAE)

By law, the foundation does not have to release the specific donors and amounts. They are required to give the list to the IRS but that info is redacted when released to the public — though the Clinton Foundation COULD release if it desired.


Many more Trump lies at the link: Fact-Checking Trump's Speech

In other words, Trump said nothing about Hillary that the left can't spin into a "lie" told on her!

Gee.... If only someone on the right could come up with a criticism the left couldn't spin!

 

[Siete]

Looks like Donald Trump lied like the devil to cast a shadow upon Hillary Clinton. Too bad the major news networks weren't having any of it. FACT: You cannot lie to the American people without being caught in that lie.

"CLAIM: "Now, because I have pointed out why [TPP] would be such a disastrous deal, she is pretending that she is against it. She has even deleted this record of total support from her book."

The facts: Clinton walked back her support for the Trans-Pacific Partnership last October — saying the final deal wasn't what she'd hoped for when she advocated for it during negotiations as Secretary of State. In April, several months before she reversed course on the deal, some passages supporting the partnership were edited out of the paperback version of her book, "Hard Choices." The cuts were part of 96 pages of cuts made to account for the paperback's smaller size, according to a publisher's note. But not all of them were cut: there's still two pages praising the deal, or at least the idea of it. "It's safe to say that the TPP won't be perfect - no deal negotiated among a dozen countries ever will be — but its higher standards, if implemented and enforced, should benefit American businesses and workers," she wrote.

Trump has adamantly opposed TPP since before his campaign began; there's no indication that his remarks changed her mind."

CLAIM: Hillary Clinton "is a world class liar"

The facts: According to PolitiFact, 59% of Trump's checked claims have been deemed false or "Pants on Fire" false, versus 12% for Clinton.

Donald Trump:

• True: 2%
• Mostly True: 7%
• Half True: 15%
• Mostly False: 17%
• False: 40%
• Pants on Fire: 19%

Hillary Clinton:

• True: 23%
• Mostly True: 28%
• Half True: 21%
• Mostly False: 15%
• False: 11%
• Pants on Fire: 1%

CLAIM: "It all started with her bad judgment in supporting the War in Iraq in the first place. Though I was not in government service, I was among the earliest to criticize the rush to war, and yes, even before the war ever started."

The facts: Politifact ranks this oft-repeated claim False. More: In September 2002, Trump said he supported the Iraq invasion during an interview with Howard Stern. Then, in September 2003 — several months after the invasion, he said "It wasn't a mistake to fight terrorism and fight it hard, and I guess maybe if I had to do it, I would have fought terrorism but not necessarily Iraq."

CLAIM: "Her server was easily hacked by foreign governments — perhaps even by her financial backers in Communist China — putting all of America in danger."

The facts: U.S. officials have told NBC News that there is no evidence of penetration of the servers by hackers, although there is evidence of phishing attempts. Clinton's campaign says that there is no evidence that her private server was ever hacked.

CLAIM: "Hillary Clinton took up to $25 million from Saudi Arabia, where being gay is also punishable by death. Hillary took millions from Kuwait, Qatar, Oman and many other countries that horribly abuse women and LGBT citizens."

As of March 2016, records showed that Saudi Arabia has donated between $10 million and $25 million to the foundation. Here's a list of everyone who has ever donated to the Clinton Foundation — as provided by the Clinton Foundation website.

This list is broken into the following categories:

• Greater than $25 million (7 donors, including Clinton Giustra Enterprise Partnership (Canada) & Frank Giustra, The Radcliffe Foundation)
• $10 to $25 million (11 donors, including Saudi Arabia & Norway)
• $5 to $10 million (17 donors, including Australia, Netherlands, Kuwait & a prominent Saudi businessman)
• $1 to $5 million (133 donors, including Qatar, Oman, UAE)

By law, the foundation does not have to release the specific donors and amounts. They are required to give the list to the IRS but that info is redacted when released to the public — though the Clinton Foundation COULD release if it desired.


Many more Trump lies at the link: Fact-Checking Trump's Speech

In other words, Trump said nothing about Hillary that the left can't spin into a "lie" told on her!

Gee.... If only someone on the right could come up with a criticism the left couldn't spin!

spin? try outright lies.

no, try lying fucking RW SOB

no, all you have to say is Trump ... the world knows what he is.


``````````````````````````````


another one


Trump’s Attack on Clinton’s Character

 

[Boss]

spin? try outright lies.

no, try lying fucking RW SOB

no, all you have to say is Trump ... the world knows what he is.

I don't see a single "outright lie" in that whole list. I see things that the lefties explain away and spin like they always do. Oh, she didn't take $25 million from the Saudi's... it was really between $10 and $24 million! ...and if we count for inflation it was probably much less! lmfao

 

[Siete]

spin? try outright lies.

no, try lying fucking RW SOB

no, all you have to say is Trump ... the world knows what he is.

I don't see a single "outright lie" in that whole list. I see things that the lefties explain away and spin like they always do. Oh, she didn't take $25 million from the Saudi's... it was really between $10 and $24 million! ...and if we count for inflation it was probably much less! lmfao

thats because you're a Trumpbot ...

• Trump falsely claimed that Clinton would “end virtually all immigration enforcement and thus create totally open borders for the United States.” Clinton supported a Senate immigration bill that would create a path to citizenship for those in the country illegally, but it also would have included large investments in border security.
• Trump falsely claimed that the private server that Clinton used as secretary of state “was easily hacked by foreign governments.” Attempts were made to hack into Clinton’s server, but the identity of the hackers has not been determined and there has been no evidence to date that any of them were successful.
• Trump falsely claimed that “Hillary Clinton’s State Department approved the transfer of 20 percent of America’s uranium holdings to Russia.” The transfer was approved by a committee headed by the Treasury Department and made up of nine voting members throughout government, including one from the State Department.

or was it because Trumpbots are too dumb to read?

 

[Boss]

thats because you're a Trumpbot ...

Actually, I am not a Trump supporter.

 

[Siete]

thats because you're a Trumpbot ...

Actually, I am not a Trump supporter.

better to dump Trump now than later.

 

[Juan de Fuca]

spin? try outright lies.

no, try lying fucking RW SOB

no, all you have to say is Trump ... the world knows what he is.

I don't see a single "outright lie" in that whole list. I see things that the lefties explain away and spin like they always do. Oh, she didn't take $25 million from the Saudi's... it was really between $10 and $24 million! ...and if we count for inflation it was probably much less! lmfao

She took money and reported it according to the law. Trump made it sound sleazy when it was perfectly above board and permitted by law. Trump is the one spinning sleaze and he got caught in it. Today, he runs away to Scotland so he doesn't have to answer all the lies caught in the press dragnet.

 

[Boss]

• Trump falsely claimed that Clinton would “end virtually all immigration enforcement and thus create totally open borders for the United States.” Clinton supported a Senate immigration bill that would create a path to citizenship for those in the country illegally, but it also would have included large investments in border security. [SPIN.]

• Trump falsely claimed that the private server that Clinton used as secretary of state “was easily hacked by foreign governments.” Attempts were made to hack into Clinton’s server, but the identity of the hackers has not been determined and there has been no evidence to date that any of them were successful. [SPIN.]

• Trump falsely claimed that “Hillary Clinton’s State Department approved the transfer of 20 percent of America’s uranium holdings to Russia.” The transfer was approved by a committee headed by the Treasury Department and made up of nine voting members throughout government, including one from the State Department. [SPIN.]

All you left-wingers know how to do is lie and spin.

Do you honestly think Trump (or anyone) expected you to all say... Oh well, I guess you got us?

 

[percysunshine]

.
The disaffected Democrat vote will elect Trump.

Life is a bitch...

 

[Juan de Fuca]

• Trump falsely claimed that Clinton would “end virtually all immigration enforcement and thus create totally open borders for the United States.” Clinton supported a Senate immigration bill that would create a path to citizenship for those in the country illegally, but it also would have included large investments in border security. [SPIN.]

• Trump falsely claimed that the private server that Clinton used as secretary of state “was easily hacked by foreign governments.” Attempts were made to hack into Clinton’s server, but the identity of the hackers has not been determined and there has been no evidence to date that any of them were successful. [SPIN.]

• Trump falsely claimed that “Hillary Clinton’s State Department approved the transfer of 20 percent of America’s uranium holdings to Russia.” The transfer was approved by a committee headed by the Treasury Department and made up of nine voting members throughout government, including one from the State Department. [SPIN.]

All you left-wingers know how to do is lie and spin.

Do you honestly think Trump (or anyone) expected you to all say... Oh well, I guess you got us?

Righties are in denial and it doesn't matter if 25 major newspapers detail the Trump lies about this. They will not accept facts, they lie to be kept in the dark and fed shit like mushrooms.

 

[JBond]

Fact checking Siete...

Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation Amid Russian Uranium Deal

The headline on the website Pravda trumpeted President Vladimir V. Putin’s latest coup, its nationalistic fervor recalling an era when its precursor served as the official mouthpiece of the Kremlin: “Russian Nuclear Energy Conquers the World.”

The article, in January 2013, detailed how the Russian atomic energy agency, Rosatom, had taken over a Canadian company with uranium-mining stakes stretching from Central Asia to the American West. The deal made Rosatom one of the world’s largest uranium producers and brought Mr. Putin closer to his goal of controlling much of the global uranium supply chain.

But the untold story behind that story is one that involves not just the Russian president, but also a former American president and a woman who would like to be the next one.


At the heart of the tale are several men, leaders of the Canadian mining industry, who have been major donors to the charitable endeavors of former PresidentBill Clinton and his family. Members of that group built, financed and eventually sold off to the Russians a company that would become known as Uranium One.

Beyond mines in Kazakhstan that are among the most lucrative in the world, the sale gave the Russians control of one-fifth of all uranium production capacity in the United States. Since uranium is considered a strategic asset, with implications for national security, the deal had to be approved by a committee composed of representatives from a number of United States government agencies. Among the agencies that eventually signed off was the State Department, then headed by Mr. Clinton’s wife, Hillary Rodham Clinton.

As the Russians gradually assumed control of Uranium One in three separate transactions from 2009 to 2013, Canadian records show, a flow of cash made its way to the Clinton Foundation. Uranium One’s chairman used his family foundation to make four donations totaling $2.35 million. Those contributions were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons, despite an agreement Mrs. Clinton had struck with the Obama White House to publicly identify all donors. Other people with ties to the company made donations as well.

And shortly after the Russians announced their intention to acquire a majority stake in Uranium One, Mr. Clinton received $500,000 for a Moscow speech from a Russian investment bank with links to the Kremlin that was promoting Uranium One stock.

At the time, both Rosatom and the United States government made promises intended to ease concerns about ceding control of the company’s assets to the Russians. Those promises have been repeatedly broken, records show.

The New York Times’s examination of the Uranium One deal is based on dozens of interviews, as well as a review of public records and securities filings in Canada,Russia and the United States. Some of the connections between Uranium One and the Clinton Foundation were unearthed by Peter Schweizer, a former fellow at the right-leaning Hoover Institution and author of the forthcoming book “Clinton Cash.” Mr. Schweizer provided a preview of material in the book to The Times, which scrutinized his information and built upon it with its own reporting.

Whether the donations played any role in the approval of the uranium deal is unknown. But the episode underscores the special ethical challenges presented by the Clinton Foundation, headed by a former president who relied heavily on foreign cash to accumulate $250 million in assets even as his wife helped steer American foreign policy as secretary of state, presiding over decisions with the potential to benefit the foundation’s donors.

In a statement, Brian Fallon, a spokesman for Mrs. Clinton’s presidential campaign, said no one “has ever produced a shred of evidence supporting the theory that Hillary Clinton ever took action as secretary of state to support the interests of donors to the Clinton Foundation.” He emphasized that multiple United States agencies, as well as the Canadian government, had signed off on the deal and that, in general, such matters were handled at a level below the secretary. “To suggest the State Department, under then-Secretary Clinton, exerted undue influence in the U.S. government’s review of the sale of Uranium One is utterly baseless,” he added.

American political campaigns are barred from accepting foreign donations. But foreigners may give to foundations in the United States. In the days since Mrs. Clinton announced her candidacy for president, the Clinton Foundation has announced changes meant to quell longstanding concerns about potential conflicts of interest in such donations; it has limited donations from foreign governments, with many, like Russia’s, barred from giving to all but its health care initiatives. That policy stops short of a more stringent agreement between Mrs. Clinton and the Obama administration that was in effect while she was secretary of state.

Either way, the Uranium One deal highlights the limits of such prohibitions. The foundation will continue to accept contributions from foreign sources whose interests, like Uranium One’s, may overlap with those of foreign governments, some of which may be at odds with the United States.

When the Uranium One deal was approved, the geopolitical backdrop was far different from today’s. The Obama administration was seeking to “reset” strained relations with Russia. The deal was strategically important to Mr. Putin, who shortly after the Americans gave their blessing sat down for a staged interview with Rosatom’s chief executive, Sergei Kiriyenko. “Few could have imagined in the past that we would own 20 percent of U.S. reserves,” Mr. Kiriyenko told Mr. Putin.

Now, after Russia’s annexation of Crimea and aggression in Ukraine, the Moscow-Washington relationship is devolving toward Cold War levels, a point several experts made in evaluating a deal so beneficial to Mr. Putin, a man known to use energy resources to project power around the world.

“Should we be concerned? Absolutely,” said Michael McFaul, who served under Mrs. Clinton as the American ambassador to Russia but said he had been unaware of the Uranium One deal until asked about it. “Do we want Putin to have a monopoly on this? Of course we don’t. We don’t want to be dependent on Putin for anything in this climate.”


A Seat at the Table

The path to a Russian acquisition of American uranium deposits began in 2005 in Kazakhstan, where the Canadian mining financier Frank Giustra orchestrated his first big uranium deal, with Mr. Clinton at his side.

The two men had flown aboard Mr. Giustra’s private jet to Almaty, Kazakhstan, where they dined with the authoritarian president, Nursultan A. Nazarbayev. Mr. Clinton handed the Kazakh president a propaganda coup when he expressed support for Mr. Nazarbayev’s bid to head an international elections monitoring group, undercutting American foreign policy and criticism of Kazakhstan’s poor human rights record by, among others, his wife, then a senator.

Within days of the visit, Mr. Giustra’s fledgling company, UrAsia Energy Ltd., signed a preliminary deal giving it stakes in three uranium mines controlled by the state-run uranium agency Kazatomprom.

If the Kazakh deal was a major victory, UrAsia did not wait long before resuming the hunt. In 2007, it merged with Uranium One, a South African company with assets in Africa and Australia, in what was described as a $3.5 billion transaction. The new company, which kept the Uranium One name, was controlled by UrAsia investors including Ian Telfer, a Canadian who became chairman. Through a spokeswoman, Mr. Giustra, whose personal stake in the deal was estimated at about $45 million, said he sold his stake in 2007.

Soon, Uranium One began to snap up companies with assets in the United States. In April 2007, it announced the purchase of a uranium mill in Utah and more than 38,000 acres of uranium exploration properties in four Western states, followed quickly by the acquisition of the Energy Metals Corporation and its uranium holdings in Wyoming, Texas and Utah. That deal made clear that Uranium One was intent on becoming “a powerhouse in the United States uranium sector with the potential to become the domestic supplier of choice for U.S. utilities,” the company declared.

Still, the company’s story was hardly front-page news in the United States — until early 2008, in the midst of Mrs. Clinton’s failed presidential campaign, when The Times published an article revealing the 2005 trip’s link to Mr. Giustra’s Kazakhstan mining deal. It also reported that several months later, Mr. Giustra had donated $31.3 million to Mr. Clinton’s foundation.

(In a statement issued after this article appeared online, Mr. Giustra said he was “extremely proud” of his charitable work with Mr. Clinton, and he urged the media to focus on poverty, health care and “the real challenges of the world.”)

Though the 2008 article quoted the former head of Kazatomprom, Moukhtar Dzhakishev, as saying that the deal required government approval and was discussed at a dinner with the president, Mr. Giustra insisted that it was a private transaction, with no need for Mr. Clinton’s influence with Kazakh officials. He described his relationship with Mr. Clinton as motivated solely by a shared interest in philanthropy.

As if to underscore the point, five months later Mr. Giustra held a fund-raiser for the Clinton Giustra Sustainable Growth Initiative, a project aimed at fostering progressive environmental and labor practices in the natural resources industry, to which he had pledged $100 million. The star-studded gala, at a conference center in Toronto, featured performances by Elton John and Shakira and celebrities like Tom Cruise, John Travolta and Robin Williams encouraging contributions from the many so-called F.O.F.s — Friends of Frank — in attendance, among them Mr. Telfer. In all, the evening generated $16 million in pledges, according to an article in The Globe and Mail.

“None of this would have been possible if Frank Giustra didn’t have a remarkable combination of caring and modesty, of vision and energy and iron determination,” Mr. Clinton told those gathered, adding: “I love this guy, and you should, too.”

But what had been a string of successes was about to hit a speed bump.

Arrest and Progress

By June 2009, a little over a year after the star-studded evening in Toronto, Uranium One’s stock was in free-fall, down 40 percent. Mr. Dzhakishev, the head of Kazatomprom, had just been arrested on charges that he illegally sold uranium deposits to foreign companies, including at least some of those won by Mr. Giustra’s UrAsia and now owned by Uranium One.

Publicly, the company tried to reassure shareholders. Its chief executive, Jean Nortier, issued a confident statement calling the situation a “complete misunderstanding.” He also contradicted Mr. Giustra’s contention that the uranium deal had not required government blessing. “When you do a transaction in Kazakhstan, you need the government’s approval,” he said, adding that UrAsia had indeed received that approval.

But privately, Uranium One officials were worried they could lose their joint mining ventures. American diplomatic cables made public by WikiLeaks also reflect concerns that Mr. Dzhakishev’s arrest was part of a Russian power play for control of Kazakh uranium assets.

At the time, Russia was already eying a stake in Uranium One, Rosatom company documents show. Rosatom officials say they were seeking to acquire mines around the world because Russia lacks sufficient domestic reserves to meet its own industry needs.

It was against this backdrop that the Vancouver-based Uranium One pressed the American Embassy in Kazakhstan, as well as Canadian diplomats, to take up its cause with Kazakh officials, according to the American cables.

“We want more than a statement to the press,” Paul Clarke, a Uranium One executive vice president, told the embassy’s energy officer on June 10, the officer reported in a cable. “That is simply chitchat.” What the company needed, Mr. Clarke said, was official written confirmation that the licenses were valid.

The American Embassy ultimately reported to the secretary of state, Mrs. Clinton. Though the Clarke cable was copied to her, it was given wide circulation, and it is unclear if she would have read it; the Clinton campaign did not address questions about the cable.

What is clear is that the embassy acted, with the cables showing that the energy officer met with Kazakh officials to discuss the issue on June 10 and 11.

Three days later, a wholly owned subsidiary of Rosatom completed a deal for 17 percent of Uranium One. And within a year, the Russian government substantially upped the ante, with a generous offer to shareholders that would give it a 51 percent controlling stake. But first, Uranium One had to get the American government to sign off on the deal.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Looks like Donald Trump lied like the devil to cast a shadow upon Hillary Clinton. Too bad the major news networks weren't having any of it. FACT: You cannot lie to the American people without being caught in that lie.

"CLAIM: "Now, because I have pointed out why [TPP] would be such a disastrous deal, she is pretending that she is against it. She has even deleted this record of total support from her book."

The facts: Clinton walked back her support for the Trans-Pacific Partnership last October — saying the final deal wasn't what she'd hoped for when she advocated for it during negotiations as Secretary of State. In April, several months before she reversed course on the deal, some passages supporting the partnership were edited out of the paperback version of her book, "Hard Choices." The cuts were part of 96 pages of cuts made to account for the paperback's smaller size, according to a publisher's note. But not all of them were cut: there's still two pages praising the deal, or at least the idea of it. "It's safe to say that the TPP won't be perfect - no deal negotiated among a dozen countries ever will be — but its higher standards, if implemented and enforced, should benefit American businesses and workers," she wrote.

Trump has adamantly opposed TPP since before his campaign began; there's no indication that his remarks changed her mind."

CLAIM: Hillary Clinton "is a world class liar"

The facts: According to PolitiFact, 59% of Trump's checked claims have been deemed false or "Pants on Fire" false, versus 12% for Clinton.

Donald Trump:

• True: 2%
• Mostly True: 7%
• Half True: 15%
• Mostly False: 17%
• False: 40%
• Pants on Fire: 19%

Hillary Clinton:

• True: 23%
• Mostly True: 28%
• Half True: 21%
• Mostly False: 15%
• False: 11%
• Pants on Fire: 1%

CLAIM: "It all started with her bad judgment in supporting the War in Iraq in the first place. Though I was not in government service, I was among the earliest to criticize the rush to war, and yes, even before the war ever started."

The facts: Politifact ranks this oft-repeated claim False. More: In September 2002, Trump said he supported the Iraq invasion during an interview with Howard Stern. Then, in September 2003 — several months after the invasion, he said "It wasn't a mistake to fight terrorism and fight it hard, and I guess maybe if I had to do it, I would have fought terrorism but not necessarily Iraq."

CLAIM: "Her server was easily hacked by foreign governments — perhaps even by her financial backers in Communist China — putting all of America in danger."

The facts: U.S. officials have told NBC News that there is no evidence of penetration of the servers by hackers, although there is evidence of phishing attempts. Clinton's campaign says that there is no evidence that her private server was ever hacked.

CLAIM: "Hillary Clinton took up to $25 million from Saudi Arabia, where being gay is also punishable by death. Hillary took millions from Kuwait, Qatar, Oman and many other countries that horribly abuse women and LGBT citizens."

As of March 2016, records showed that Saudi Arabia has donated between $10 million and $25 million to the foundation. Here's a list of everyone who has ever donated to the Clinton Foundation — as provided by the Clinton Foundation website.

This list is broken into the following categories:

• Greater than $25 million (7 donors, including Clinton Giustra Enterprise Partnership (Canada) & Frank Giustra, The Radcliffe Foundation)
• $10 to $25 million (11 donors, including Saudi Arabia & Norway)
• $5 to $10 million (17 donors, including Australia, Netherlands, Kuwait & a prominent Saudi businessman)
• $1 to $5 million (133 donors, including Qatar, Oman, UAE)

By law, the foundation does not have to release the specific donors and amounts. They are required to give the list to the IRS but that info is redacted when released to the public — though the Clinton Foundation COULD release if it desired.


Many more Trump lies at the link: Fact-Checking Trump's Speech

That Trump is a liar is settled, accepted, and beyond dispute; and his lies concerning Clinton are further proof of that.

 

[Boss]

She took money and reported it according to the law. Trump made it sound sleazy when it was perfectly above board and permitted by law. Trump is the one spinning sleaze and he got caught in it. Today, he runs away to Scotland so he doesn't have to answer all the lies caught in the press dragnet.

Haha, yeah... I'm sure that's what it is!

Let me tell you what this thread is all about... Damage Control.

Donald Trump took a buzz saw to Hillary in his speech. He totally eviscerated her for 40 minutes.

He's not the candidate I wanted, I don't even know if I will vote for him, but in this speech he said things a republican has needed to say for quite some time. I can't imagine McCain or Romney ever being so bold. In fact, I don't even know if Ted Cruz could have made such a scathing indictment. This was profound and every left-wing liberal out there KNOWS it was... that's why you're posting this thread.

 

[Juan de Fuca]

Donald Trump lied for 40 minutes, now he has to pay the piper.

 

[Juan de Fuca]

 

[Siete]

Fact checking Siete...

Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation Amid Russian Uranium Deal

The headline on the website Pravda trumpeted President Vladimir V. Putin’s latest coup, its nationalistic fervor recalling an era when its precursor served as the official mouthpiece of the Kremlin: “Russian Nuclear Energy Conquers the World.”

The article, in January 2013, detailed how the Russian atomic energy agency, Rosatom, had taken over a Canadian company with uranium-mining stakes stretching from Central Asia to the American West. The deal made Rosatom one of the world’s largest uranium producers and brought Mr. Putin closer to his goal of controlling much of the global uranium supply chain.

But the untold story behind that story is one that involves not just the Russian president, but also a former American president and a woman who would like to be the next one.


At the heart of the tale are several men, leaders of the Canadian mining industry, who have been major donors to the charitable endeavors of former PresidentBill Clinton and his family. Members of that group built, financed and eventually sold off to the Russians a company that would become known as Uranium One.

Beyond mines in Kazakhstan that are among the most lucrative in the world, the sale gave the Russians control of one-fifth of all uranium production capacity in the United States. Since uranium is considered a strategic asset, with implications for national security, the deal had to be approved by a committee composed of representatives from a number of United States government agencies. Among the agencies that eventually signed off was the State Department, then headed by Mr. Clinton’s wife, Hillary Rodham Clinton.

As the Russians gradually assumed control of Uranium One in three separate transactions from 2009 to 2013, Canadian records show, a flow of cash made its way to the Clinton Foundation. Uranium One’s chairman used his family foundation to make four donations totaling $2.35 million. Those contributions were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons, despite an agreement Mrs. Clinton had struck with the Obama White House to publicly identify all donors. Other people with ties to the company made donations as well.

And shortly after the Russians announced their intention to acquire a majority stake in Uranium One, Mr. Clinton received $500,000 for a Moscow speech from a Russian investment bank with links to the Kremlin that was promoting Uranium One stock.

At the time, both Rosatom and the United States government made promises intended to ease concerns about ceding control of the company’s assets to the Russians. Those promises have been repeatedly broken, records show.

The New York Times’s examination of the Uranium One deal is based on dozens of interviews, as well as a review of public records and securities filings in Canada,Russia and the United States. Some of the connections between Uranium One and the Clinton Foundation were unearthed by Peter Schweizer, a former fellow at the right-leaning Hoover Institution and author of the forthcoming book “Clinton Cash.” Mr. Schweizer provided a preview of material in the book to The Times, which scrutinized his information and built upon it with its own reporting.

Whether the donations played any role in the approval of the uranium deal is unknown. But the episode underscores the special ethical challenges presented by the Clinton Foundation, headed by a former president who relied heavily on foreign cash to accumulate $250 million in assets even as his wife helped steer American foreign policy as secretary of state, presiding over decisions with the potential to benefit the foundation’s donors.

In a statement, Brian Fallon, a spokesman for Mrs. Clinton’s presidential campaign, said no one “has ever produced a shred of evidence supporting the theory that Hillary Clinton ever took action as secretary of state to support the interests of donors to the Clinton Foundation.” He emphasized that multiple United States agencies, as well as the Canadian government, had signed off on the deal and that, in general, such matters were handled at a level below the secretary. “To suggest the State Department, under then-Secretary Clinton, exerted undue influence in the U.S. government’s review of the sale of Uranium One is utterly baseless,” he added.

American political campaigns are barred from accepting foreign donations. But foreigners may give to foundations in the United States. In the days since Mrs. Clinton announced her candidacy for president, the Clinton Foundation has announced changes meant to quell longstanding concerns about potential conflicts of interest in such donations; it has limited donations from foreign governments, with many, like Russia’s, barred from giving to all but its health care initiatives. That policy stops short of a more stringent agreement between Mrs. Clinton and the Obama administration that was in effect while she was secretary of state.

Either way, the Uranium One deal highlights the limits of such prohibitions. The foundation will continue to accept contributions from foreign sources whose interests, like Uranium One’s, may overlap with those of foreign governments, some of which may be at odds with the United States.

When the Uranium One deal was approved, the geopolitical backdrop was far different from today’s. The Obama administration was seeking to “reset” strained relations with Russia. The deal was strategically important to Mr. Putin, who shortly after the Americans gave their blessing sat down for a staged interview with Rosatom’s chief executive, Sergei Kiriyenko. “Few could have imagined in the past that we would own 20 percent of U.S. reserves,” Mr. Kiriyenko told Mr. Putin.

Now, after Russia’s annexation of Crimea and aggression in Ukraine, the Moscow-Washington relationship is devolving toward Cold War levels, a point several experts made in evaluating a deal so beneficial to Mr. Putin, a man known to use energy resources to project power around the world.

“Should we be concerned? Absolutely,” said Michael McFaul, who served under Mrs. Clinton as the American ambassador to Russia but said he had been unaware of the Uranium One deal until asked about it. “Do we want Putin to have a monopoly on this? Of course we don’t. We don’t want to be dependent on Putin for anything in this climate.”


A Seat at the Table

The path to a Russian acquisition of American uranium deposits began in 2005 in Kazakhstan, where the Canadian mining financier Frank Giustra orchestrated his first big uranium deal, with Mr. Clinton at his side.

The two men had flown aboard Mr. Giustra’s private jet to Almaty, Kazakhstan, where they dined with the authoritarian president, Nursultan A. Nazarbayev. Mr. Clinton handed the Kazakh president a propaganda coup when he expressed support for Mr. Nazarbayev’s bid to head an international elections monitoring group, undercutting American foreign policy and criticism of Kazakhstan’s poor human rights record by, among others, his wife, then a senator.

Within days of the visit, Mr. Giustra’s fledgling company, UrAsia Energy Ltd., signed a preliminary deal giving it stakes in three uranium mines controlled by the state-run uranium agency Kazatomprom.

If the Kazakh deal was a major victory, UrAsia did not wait long before resuming the hunt. In 2007, it merged with Uranium One, a South African company with assets in Africa and Australia, in what was described as a $3.5 billion transaction. The new company, which kept the Uranium One name, was controlled by UrAsia investors including Ian Telfer, a Canadian who became chairman. Through a spokeswoman, Mr. Giustra, whose personal stake in the deal was estimated at about $45 million, said he sold his stake in 2007.

Soon, Uranium One began to snap up companies with assets in the United States. In April 2007, it announced the purchase of a uranium mill in Utah and more than 38,000 acres of uranium exploration properties in four Western states, followed quickly by the acquisition of the Energy Metals Corporation and its uranium holdings in Wyoming, Texas and Utah. That deal made clear that Uranium One was intent on becoming “a powerhouse in the United States uranium sector with the potential to become the domestic supplier of choice for U.S. utilities,” the company declared.

Still, the company’s story was hardly front-page news in the United States — until early 2008, in the midst of Mrs. Clinton’s failed presidential campaign, when The Times published an article revealing the 2005 trip’s link to Mr. Giustra’s Kazakhstan mining deal. It also reported that several months later, Mr. Giustra had donated $31.3 million to Mr. Clinton’s foundation.

(In a statement issued after this article appeared online, Mr. Giustra said he was “extremely proud” of his charitable work with Mr. Clinton, and he urged the media to focus on poverty, health care and “the real challenges of the world.”)

Though the 2008 article quoted the former head of Kazatomprom, Moukhtar Dzhakishev, as saying that the deal required government approval and was discussed at a dinner with the president, Mr. Giustra insisted that it was a private transaction, with no need for Mr. Clinton’s influence with Kazakh officials. He described his relationship with Mr. Clinton as motivated solely by a shared interest in philanthropy.

As if to underscore the point, five months later Mr. Giustra held a fund-raiser for the Clinton Giustra Sustainable Growth Initiative, a project aimed at fostering progressive environmental and labor practices in the natural resources industry, to which he had pledged $100 million. The star-studded gala, at a conference center in Toronto, featured performances by Elton John and Shakira and celebrities like Tom Cruise, John Travolta and Robin Williams encouraging contributions from the many so-called F.O.F.s — Friends of Frank — in attendance, among them Mr. Telfer. In all, the evening generated $16 million in pledges, according to an article in The Globe and Mail.

“None of this would have been possible if Frank Giustra didn’t have a remarkable combination of caring and modesty, of vision and energy and iron determination,” Mr. Clinton told those gathered, adding: “I love this guy, and you should, too.”

But what had been a string of successes was about to hit a speed bump.

Arrest and Progress

By June 2009, a little over a year after the star-studded evening in Toronto, Uranium One’s stock was in free-fall, down 40 percent. Mr. Dzhakishev, the head of Kazatomprom, had just been arrested on charges that he illegally sold uranium deposits to foreign companies, including at least some of those won by Mr. Giustra’s UrAsia and now owned by Uranium One.

Publicly, the company tried to reassure shareholders. Its chief executive, Jean Nortier, issued a confident statement calling the situation a “complete misunderstanding.” He also contradicted Mr. Giustra’s contention that the uranium deal had not required government blessing. “When you do a transaction in Kazakhstan, you need the government’s approval,” he said, adding that UrAsia had indeed received that approval.

But privately, Uranium One officials were worried they could lose their joint mining ventures. American diplomatic cables made public by WikiLeaks also reflect concerns that Mr. Dzhakishev’s arrest was part of a Russian power play for control of Kazakh uranium assets.

At the time, Russia was already eying a stake in Uranium One, Rosatom company documents show. Rosatom officials say they were seeking to acquire mines around the world because Russia lacks sufficient domestic reserves to meet its own industry needs.

It was against this backdrop that the Vancouver-based Uranium One pressed the American Embassy in Kazakhstan, as well as Canadian diplomats, to take up its cause with Kazakh officials, according to the American cables.

“We want more than a statement to the press,” Paul Clarke, a Uranium One executive vice president, told the embassy’s energy officer on June 10, the officer reported in a cable. “That is simply chitchat.” What the company needed, Mr. Clarke said, was official written confirmation that the licenses were valid.

The American Embassy ultimately reported to the secretary of state, Mrs. Clinton. Though the Clarke cable was copied to her, it was given wide circulation, and it is unclear if she would have read it; the Clinton campaign did not address questions about the cable.

What is clear is that the embassy acted, with the cables showing that the energy officer met with Kazakh officials to discuss the issue on June 10 and 11.

Three days later, a wholly owned subsidiary of Rosatom completed a deal for 17 percent of Uranium One. And within a year, the Russian government substantially upped the ante, with a generous offer to shareholders that would give it a 51 percent controlling stake. But first, Uranium One had to get the American government to sign off on the deal.

Fact checking YOU ..

here's the audited tax statments from the Clinton foundation .. 1998 and up ... show me, don't tell me .

Audited Financial Statements & IRS Form 990s
2014 | 2013 | 2013 amended | 2012 | 2012 amended | 2011 | 2011 amended | 2010 | 2010 amended | 2009 | 2008 | 2007 | 2006 | 2005 | 2004 | 2003 | 2002 | 2001 | 2000 | 1999 | 1998

your turn ..