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

[deltex1]

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.

Stats would claim that "a bear shits in the woods" is a wild claim.

 

[B. Kidd]

Clinton fluffers = professional turd polishers.

 

[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...

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 **** on, what the **** are you talking about?

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

it's good for a bump

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Where there is smoke there is fire. The Hildabeast team already tried to discredit the author of Clinton Cash and promptly got stuffed, this isn't going away

 

[Moonglow]

Where there is smoke there is fire. The Hildabeast team already tried to discredit the author of Clinton Cash and promptly got stuffed, this isn't going away

He pretty much stuffed himself by admitting he has no proof of his allegations.....

 

[iamwhatiseem]

Where there is smoke there is fire. The Hildabeast team already tried to discredit the author of Clinton Cash and promptly got stuffed, this isn't going away

He pretty much stuffed himself by admitting he has no proof of his allegations.....

Just keep repeating the same mantra don't you?
As stated in this thread at least 10 times...he based the books on NUMEROUS easily and already verified events that are on public record.
He then took those events and put together other NUMEROUS verified events on public record - and tied them together.
It is like this...lets say you have a charity fund. You also happen to be the mayor of Los Angeles.
You get a donation from Jon Blow.
A few weeks later Job Blow get's a lucrative contract that he bid on.
So what...just one event, you can't say for sure somethin fishy happened.
But then someone investigating you sees that there are literally dozens of donations from out of state, and even out of country people who it is hard to explain why they would be donating to your charity in the first place - BUT - every single one of them at the same time got favors and positive votes on things very important to them.
That is Clinton Cash.
All of the things he wrote on happened. They are on public record.
What he said, right off the bat. he does not have access to emails etc. between the two parties only that "HOLY SHIT there are a lot of coincidences here!!!!"

If you don't find these things questionable. Then you have zero credence. None.
Anyone who would just blow past all of this and not raise an eyebrow or just flat out refuse to even acknowledge what is aleady on public record - you do not have an honest opinion.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

2 words: Cattle futures

 

[Moonglow]

Where there is smoke there is fire. The Hildabeast team already tried to discredit the author of Clinton Cash and promptly got stuffed, this isn't going away

He pretty much stuffed himself by admitting he has no proof of his allegations.....

Just keep repeating the same mantra don't you?
As stated in this thread at least 10 times...he based the books on NUMEROUS easily and already verified events that are on public record.
He then took those events and put together other NUMEROUS verified events on public record - and tied them together.
It is like this...lets say you have a charity fund. You also happen to be the mayor of Los Angeles.
You get a donation from Jon Blow.
A few weeks later Job Blow get's a lucrative contract that he bid on.
So what...just one event, you can't say for sure somethin fishy happened.
But then someone investigating you sees that there are literally dozens of donations from out of state, and even out of country people who it is hard to explain why they would be donating to your charity in the first place - BUT - every single one of them at the same time got favors and positive votes on things very important to them.
That is Clinton Cash.
All of the things he wrote on happened. They are on public record.
What he said, right off the bat. he does not have access to emails etc. between the two parties only that "HOLY SHIT there are a lot of coincidences here!!!!"

If you don't find these things questionable. Then you have zero credence. None.
Anyone who would just blow past all of this and not raise an eyebrow or just flat out refuse to even acknowledge what is aleady on public record - you do not have an honest opinion.

Evidently you can't handle what the author stated as fact to the allegations in an interview...It's was not an opinion since I do not support the Clintons...it was a mere case of stating what the author stated...

 

[iamwhatiseem]

Where there is smoke there is fire. The Hildabeast team already tried to discredit the author of Clinton Cash and promptly got stuffed, this isn't going away

He pretty much stuffed himself by admitting he has no proof of his allegations.....

Just keep repeating the same mantra don't you?
As stated in this thread at least 10 times...he based the books on NUMEROUS easily and already verified events that are on public record.
He then took those events and put together other NUMEROUS verified events on public record - and tied them together.
It is like this...lets say you have a charity fund. You also happen to be the mayor of Los Angeles.
You get a donation from Jon Blow.
A few weeks later Job Blow get's a lucrative contract that he bid on.
So what...just one event, you can't say for sure somethin fishy happened.
But then someone investigating you sees that there are literally dozens of donations from out of state, and even out of country people who it is hard to explain why they would be donating to your charity in the first place - BUT - every single one of them at the same time got favors and positive votes on things very important to them.
That is Clinton Cash.
All of the things he wrote on happened. They are on public record.
What he said, right off the bat. he does not have access to emails etc. between the two parties only that "HOLY SHIT there are a lot of coincidences here!!!!"

If you don't find these things questionable. Then you have zero credence. None.
Anyone who would just blow past all of this and not raise an eyebrow or just flat out refuse to even acknowledge what is aleady on public record - you do not have an honest opinion.

Evidently you can't handle what the author stated as fact to the allegations in an interview...It's was not an opinion since I do not support the Clintons...it was a mere case of stating what the author stated...

Nope. You are misrepresenting both the book and what he said.
He was asked "do you have direct evidence?" - he said - "No, we don’t have direct evidence. But it warrants further investigation because, again… this is part of the broader pattern. You either have to come to the conclusion that these are all coincidences or something else is afoot.”

That, in now way, is an admission of a lie or a deceit.
The book is not supposed to be line item evidence of crime...but simply to lay out KNOWN events on public record - and saying "look at all of this, either this is colossal coincidence or something else is happening here".
That is the purpose of the book.

 

[Moonglow]

Where there is smoke there is fire. The Hildabeast team already tried to discredit the author of Clinton Cash and promptly got stuffed, this isn't going away

He pretty much stuffed himself by admitting he has no proof of his allegations.....

Just keep repeating the same mantra don't you?
As stated in this thread at least 10 times...he based the books on NUMEROUS easily and already verified events that are on public record.
He then took those events and put together other NUMEROUS verified events on public record - and tied them together.
It is like this...lets say you have a charity fund. You also happen to be the mayor of Los Angeles.
You get a donation from Jon Blow.
A few weeks later Job Blow get's a lucrative contract that he bid on.
So what...just one event, you can't say for sure somethin fishy happened.
But then someone investigating you sees that there are literally dozens of donations from out of state, and even out of country people who it is hard to explain why they would be donating to your charity in the first place - BUT - every single one of them at the same time got favors and positive votes on things very important to them.
That is Clinton Cash.
All of the things he wrote on happened. They are on public record.
What he said, right off the bat. he does not have access to emails etc. between the two parties only that "HOLY SHIT there are a lot of coincidences here!!!!"

If you don't find these things questionable. Then you have zero credence. None.
Anyone who would just blow past all of this and not raise an eyebrow or just flat out refuse to even acknowledge what is aleady on public record - you do not have an honest opinion.

Evidently you can't handle what the author stated as fact to the allegations in an interview...It's was not an opinion since I do not support the Clintons...it was a mere case of stating what the author stated...

Nope. You are misrepresenting both the book and what he said.
He was asked "do you have direct evidence?" - he said - "No, we don’t have direct evidence. But it warrants further investigation because, again… this is part of the broader pattern. You either have to come to the conclusion that these are all coincidences or something else is afoot.”

That, in now way, is an admission of a lie or a deceit.
The book is not supposed to be line item evidence of crime...but simply to lay out KNOWN events on public record - and saying "look at all of this, either this is colossal coincidence or something else is happening here".
That is the purpose of the book.

Without evidence, he is working on hearsay and conjecture, which is not admissible in a court of law.......

 

[iamwhatiseem]

Where there is smoke there is fire. The Hildabeast team already tried to discredit the author of Clinton Cash and promptly got stuffed, this isn't going away

He pretty much stuffed himself by admitting he has no proof of his allegations.....

Just keep repeating the same mantra don't you?
As stated in this thread at least 10 times...he based the books on NUMEROUS easily and already verified events that are on public record.
He then took those events and put together other NUMEROUS verified events on public record - and tied them together.
It is like this...lets say you have a charity fund. You also happen to be the mayor of Los Angeles.
You get a donation from Jon Blow.
A few weeks later Job Blow get's a lucrative contract that he bid on.
So what...just one event, you can't say for sure somethin fishy happened.
But then someone investigating you sees that there are literally dozens of donations from out of state, and even out of country people who it is hard to explain why they would be donating to your charity in the first place - BUT - every single one of them at the same time got favors and positive votes on things very important to them.
That is Clinton Cash.
All of the things he wrote on happened. They are on public record.
What he said, right off the bat. he does not have access to emails etc. between the two parties only that "HOLY SHIT there are a lot of coincidences here!!!!"

If you don't find these things questionable. Then you have zero credence. None.
Anyone who would just blow past all of this and not raise an eyebrow or just flat out refuse to even acknowledge what is aleady on public record - you do not have an honest opinion.

Evidently you can't handle what the author stated as fact to the allegations in an interview...It's was not an opinion since I do not support the Clintons...it was a mere case of stating what the author stated...

Nope. You are misrepresenting both the book and what he said.
He was asked "do you have direct evidence?" - he said - "No, we don’t have direct evidence. But it warrants further investigation because, again… this is part of the broader pattern. You either have to come to the conclusion that these are all coincidences or something else is afoot.”

That, in now way, is an admission of a lie or a deceit.
The book is not supposed to be line item evidence of crime...but simply to lay out KNOWN events on public record - and saying "look at all of this, either this is colossal coincidence or something else is happening here".
That is the purpose of the book.

Without evidence, he is working on hearsay and conjecture, which is not admissible in a court of law.......

So you can't read. Or refuse to acknowledge what is obvious and right in front of you.

One more time...the book is a list of events ON PUBLIC RECORD. And then list other corresponding events ON PUBLIC RECORD. And then says to you..."either this is really a HUGE coincidence or there is something else to it...here is a possibility...
Listing a donation that is on public record is not hearsay.
Listing a corresponding event by that donater, that is on public record. is not hearsay.
Is all of this really a coincidence or is something going on here on these dozens of mighty curious PUBLIC RECORD events?

Again, if you just blow that off then you have no credence or honest opinion.
If you can't raise an eyebrow as to why would all of these foreign government officials donate to a foundation in the first place, but - oh - just happens to take place at the same time they were seeking something important from the U.S....then you are a blind partisan.

 

[LoneLaugher]

I heard the guy's interview with Stephanopolous (sic) this morning.

Sounded like a guy trying to convince the host that he was not a hack.

I'd like to know if Hillary Clinton had anything to do with pushing the sale of uranium concerns. I understand that it was approved by several agencies.

Also....the guy pronounces the word "nuclear" like it is spelled "nukuler". That's a tell as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Kosh]

Typical far left drone thread..

There is plenty of evidence, just no smoking gun..

Yet the far left drones are blinded as they will have no choice in the primaries, like they did in 2008..

 

[Valerie]

just another dishonest pooh flinger trying to spread some stank...just.because.he.can! $$$$







Back to basic facts in latest Hillary Clinton ‘scandal’ story


By Paul Waldman April 27 at 12:36 PM


The Clinton Foundation has now acknowledged mistakes in its accounting and has pledged greater transparency into its foreign donations, after the author of a forthcoming book on the foundation’s finances — and their alleged connections to Hillary Clinton’s tenure as Secretary of State — did a tour on the Sunday shows promoting his forthcoming revelations.


The first glimpse of these came at the end of last week, when the New York Times came out with an investigation into the Clinton Foundation, the State Department, and some very nefarious-sounding players (Russians! Uranium!), growing out of the book, “Clinton Cash” by Peter Schweizer. There are some rather outlandish allegations being made (Mitt Romney said “It looks like bribery”), so we thought it would be good to break this story down, clarify what’s known and what isn’t, and understand what we should take away from it, because it could be a topic of discussion for some time.


The basic facts: This story is about the sale of a controlling stake in a Canadian company called Uranium One to Rosatom, the Russian atomic energy agency. Because Uranium One controlled uranium mines in the United States, the sale had to be approved by the Committee on Foreign Investment In the United States (CFIUS), part of the executive branch. A number of investors in Uranium One gave donations to the Clinton Foundation during the time the sale was being considered (between 2008 and 2010), in part through the participation of Frank Giustra, a Canadian mining magnate who was a large donor to the Foundation and who had controlled a company that eventually bought Uranium One (according to the Times, Giustra sold his interest in the company in 2007, before the Rosatom deal).


In addition, Bill Clinton was paid $500,000 in 2010 to give a speech to a Russian bank with ties to the Russian government. The U.S. government eventually approved the deal in 2010.


What’s the allegation against Hillary Clinton? The reason this is a story is the potential that there was some quid pro quo involved: that in exchange for donations to the Clinton Foundation and/or the speech Bill Clinton gave in Russia, Hillary Clinton used her position as Secretary of State to make approval of this sale happen. It need not be explicit, but at the very least there has to be a connection between donations and official action that Clinton took.


What’s the evidence for that allegation? There isn’t any, at least not yet. The only evidence is timing: people who would benefit from the sale made donations to the foundation at around the same time the matter was before the government.


What’s the evidence in Clinton’s favor? Even if Clinton had wanted to make sure the sale was approved, it wouldn’t have been possible for her to do it on her own. CFIUS is made up of not only the Secretary of State, but also the secretaries of Treasury, Justice, Homeland Security, Commerce, Defense, and Energy, as well as the heads of the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative and the Office of Science and Technology Policy. The Director of National Intelligence and the Secretary of Labor are non-voting members, and CFIUS’s work is also observed by representatives of other agencies like the National Security Council and the Office of Management and Budget. The idea that Clinton could have convinced all those officials and all those departments to change their position on the sale, even if she had wanted to, borders on the absurd.


Furthermore, the official who was the State Department’s representative on CFIUS at the time, Jose Hernandez, told Time magazine that Clinton did not participate in the evaluation of this deal: “Secretary Clinton never intervened with me on any CFIUS matter,” he said.

So in this case, we have no evidence of a quid pro quo, and we don’t have evidence that Hillary Clinton took any action at all with regard to this sale, in favor of the interests of the donors or otherwise.




Back to basic facts in latest Hillary Clinton scandal story - The Washington Post

 

[mikegriffith1]

You are immune to fact and logic. The author was merely saying that he has no evidence of criminal conduct at this point but that the available evidence certainly warrants an investigation to see if there was criminal conduct. There is certainly the appearance of impropriety.

And, tell me, are the Washington Post and New York Times also guilty of "smearing" Hillary. You have read the articles they've published on the improper-looking donations made to the Clinton Foundation after Hillary approved things the donors (or their associates) wanted, right? And the donations are not even the whole story.

 

[JoeB131]

Excuse me......they took massive speaking fees while she was Secretary of State....and the people who gave the fees for the speeches recieved favorable decisions from the state dept........

I think you are confused again.

 

[JoeB131]

Where there is smoke there is fire. The Hildabeast team already tried to discredit the author of Clinton Cash and promptly got stuffed, this isn't going away

actually, it probably is. The author has been caught in several errors already, given time, he won't have much credibility left.

 

[JoeB131]

Again, if you just blow that off then you have no credence or honest opinion.
If you can't raise an eyebrow as to why would all of these foreign government officials donate to a foundation in the first place, but - oh - just happens to take place at the same time they were seeking something important from the U.S....then you are a blind partisan.

Or someone who doesn't buy into bizarre conspiracy theories.

The problem with conspiracy theories is that no matter how many times you prove it was a weather balloon, they will insist it was a flying saucer.

9/11, the JFK Assassination, whatever. You can pick out facts that makes it look like Elvis killed Kennedy, if you just put them in the right "context".

 

[Papageorgio]

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.

Someone other than Hillary, Obama, Wasserman-Schultz, Warren, Reid and Pelosi is lying? Doesn't he realize that only they are allowed to lie and everyone is supposed to support them?

The Clinton Foundation did announce today that they need to re-file their charity. The brilliant accountants screwed up.

Still hoping Hillary gets the Democratic nomination.