g5000
Diamond Member
- Nov 26, 2011
- 139,008
- 94,434
- 2,605
Pseudocons would rather stick needles in their eyes than watch the video.
When I say they are willfully blind, I am not joking.
R-W'ers, PLEASE listen to Smith's debunking of Clinton-Uranium One
- Thread starter nat4900
- Start date
When I say they are willfully blind, I am not joking.
sakinago
Gold Member
- Sep 13, 2012
- 5,320
- 1,635
- 280
It’s not a dry cut case no...but there are HUGE players involved, with HUGE “donations,” that went undisclosed at the time of this deal. It NEEDS to be looked into, there is just as much collusion evidence there as there is with trump and Russia. The clintons are not stupid, at least not stupid enough to go for a straight up quid pro quo without any middlemen laundering. It’s the cases of middlemen laundering that usually get away with this sort of thing, it’s the dumb people who don’t launder (launder in an general sense, of giving yourself enough cover) that get caught. And if there’s nothing there then why did the Obama’s administration slap a gag order on the FBI source, WHILE THE FBI WAS INVESTIGATING THE DEAL?? Obviously there was something the FBI was concerned about, and obviously there was something that the Obama’s administration (with or without Obama’s explicit knowledge) that they did not want getting out about this deal.
-I already knew about the 9 other departments and SOS/SD is one of them, and in 2008 was there a bigger influencer than the Clinton’s? Who had also made shady deals in the past giving China top secret tech? These are all departments and cabinets with appointed officials. Outside of Obama (maybe even bigger than Obama) who else had more power than the clintons??? Even pre Obama they still retained a great deal of influence.
-the donators claim that he sold his shares cannot be substantiated, even if they are that doesnt mean his not a big player, it actually makes him a much much safer, less connected middlemen who is also still a huge player/influencer with or without the shares. And by the way there is still 4 MILLION more dollars to account for in this deal, 4 million isn’t chicken shit
-and it seems shep is suggesting that people are claiming that uranium is just going right to Russia for more nukes, no no no. This is about mullah, mullah concerning THE MOST HIGHLY REGULATED SUBSTANCE ON THE PLANET. So if you get powerful influencers, in a powerful government, that’s quite the advantage, vs something like coal or steel, anybody can get into that, and there’s plenty of it. But uranium...might as well be a monopoly even with other competition, no other competition is going to muscle in and threaten you without having billions to throw around. Uranium is one the rarest and most valuable minerals out there. This is head and shoulder above all of fort Knox’s gold...gold is shiny and retains value sure...but uranium can make or break countries. People do not understand the gravity of how valuable uranium is, and how hard it is to get more of it when it’s so highly regulated (for good reason).
Shep did not give a debunking, what he gave was to straighten people out who think Hillary got donations and gave away uranium. Plenty of people believed that sure, but there is plenty in this case that raises eyebrows.
Lastamender
Diamond Member
- Dec 28, 2011
- 65,087
- 59,286
- 3,600
And, of course, she offered no opinion, right.
Blackrook
Diamond Member
- Jun 20, 2014
- 22,148
- 12,318
- 1,405
Shepard Smith has to explain why the New York Times article is wrong, and he is right.
Synthaholic
Diamond Member
- Jul 21, 2010
- 84,659
- 78,252
- 3,605
You're still spouting their lies. You're just getting it from an even more extreme website.
jillian
Princess
they're not listening. if they listened to facts, they wouldn't be rightwingnuts
Blackrook
Diamond Member
- Jun 20, 2014
- 22,148
- 12,318
- 1,405
The New York Times said the Clintons are guilty of corruption in the Uranium One deal.
The New York Times is not a conservative source, and is not biased against the Clintons.
I don't see how Democrats and liberals can whine about this when the source is the New York Times.
The New York Times is not a conservative source, and is not biased against the Clintons.
I don't see how Democrats and liberals can whine about this when the source is the New York Times.
Blackrook
Diamond Member
- Jun 20, 2014
- 22,148
- 12,318
- 1,405
New York Times is the source.
Synthaholic
Diamond Member
- Jul 21, 2010
- 84,659
- 78,252
- 3,605
Relevance? It wasn't her department. If she was asked her opinion I'm sure she gave it. Just like Robert Gates probably did, and Jeh Johnson probably did, and Joe Biden probably did. And Susan Rice probably did.
Or none of them were asked. Except for Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz. He's a badass.
Synthaholic
Diamond Member
- Jul 21, 2010
- 84,659
- 78,252
- 3,605
This is really the reality we face. Pleading with them to stop being ignorant sheep, easily led around by their resentment and jealousy of their fellow Americans, is a total waste of time.
These USMB mouthbreathers are already accounted for in the voting demographic. We just need to show up. When we do it's a huge wave.
Synthaholic
Diamond Member
- Jul 21, 2010
- 84,659
- 78,252
- 3,605
False.
Lastamender
Diamond Member
- Dec 28, 2011
- 65,087
- 59,286
- 3,600
I find it very hard to believe she did not know those millions were coming. Her track record is showing.
Synthaholic
Diamond Member
- Jul 21, 2010
- 84,659
- 78,252
- 3,605
The millions were donated years beforehand, and donated to Bill Clinton.
Lastamender
Diamond Member
- Dec 28, 2011
- 65,087
- 59,286
- 3,600
By all means, source it.
easyt65
Diamond Member
- Aug 4, 2015
- 90,307
- 61,580
- 2,645
2nd thread on this ... Smith's debunking already debunked....next.
LordBrownTrout
Diamond Member
This isn't an extreme website and you're still stupid.
The FBI informant in the Uranium One probe is an ex-lobbyist for a Russian firm
Doesn't matter. Clinton did not have the power to okay the deal. 9 different agencies or individuals had to approve the deal.
It has not been debunked. Next.
Shep Smith is a honest newsman. You are the ideologue.
She did not have the power to do it. Amazing how ignorant Trump supporters like you are.
Similar threads
New Topics
-
-
-
-
Awaken with JP calls out Trump and the Israeli Lobby- Started by Andrew_Jackson_FTW
- Replies: 3
-
