So Why All the Lying About Russia?

[jc456]

So you have nothing.

This is the correct thread. Your abject stuipdity is embarassing.

i'll tell you the same thing i've told another whackjob poster not too long ago:

so how many years ago was that exchange again? guess obama is running on CPT huh? when ARE those shenanigans you think are gonna happen anyway? i mean after all - he imposed sanctions on them thar roooskies, AND expelled roooskie spies, AND closed down their compounds. what has donny done? oh yea..... it took a veto act of congress to finally imposed even more stringent sanctions. & he didn't he just have one lifted against a russian?

why yes.... yes he did.

So...yes, Clinton sold Uranium rights to the Russians.

Thank you!

uranium one - - - debunked.

but i was talking about obama's so called 'incriminating' video.

only in a leftists dream.

proven. & with credible non biased links...

never investigated.

 

[playtime]

Nothing wrong with it, IF he had told us about it, instead of lying over and over again about it and many other Russian connections.

I've been a Realtor for 40+ years. Nothing on the level of the Great Donald Trump. You never, ever discuss a deal in the making. Word gets out and the price skyrockets. NO COLLUSION!

this election in 2016 was a MASSIVE, INTERFERENCE PLAN, run by the Russian government..... unlike anything they had ever done before.

PLEASE show us the MASSIVE INTERFERENCE PLAN. Please show where it was "unlike anything they had ever done before". So what? NO COLLUSION!

that's simply untrue, fact check it, the money spent in Israel was a support for a program, and all money was spent on this program, was spent PRIOR to Netanyahu ever announcing he was calling another election.... so it was NOT used to influence an election.... no one KNEW there would be an election.

Obama admin. sent taxpayer money to campaign to oust Netanyahu
Stephen Dinan - The Washington Times - Tuesday, July 12, 2016
The State Department paid hundreds of thousands of dollars in taxpayers grants to an Israeli group that used the money to build a campaign to oust Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in last year’s Israeli parliamentary elections, a congressional investigation concluded Tuesday.

Obama admin. sent taxpayer money to campaign to oust Netanyahu

Obama’s Meddling in Foreign Elections: Six Examples
by STEVE BALDWIN

June 14, 2017, 12:00 AM
[...]
Obama’s State Department gave $350,000 to a group called the “One Voice Movement (OVM),” for supporting “peace negotiations between Israel and Palestine.” However, the State Department then used leftover funds to organize an effort against Netanyahu’s reelection. OVM contracted out a group called “V15,” which in turned hired five campaign experts from the U.S., including Obama’s field director from his last presidential campaign. As the Weekly Standard’s Jim Swift wrote, “once the infrastructure was built, it was used in an attempt to topple the government of one of America’s closest allies.”
[...]
Obama’s Meddling in Foreign Elections: Six Examples | The American Spectator | Politics is too important to be taken seriously.

Nope! All the money spent by the USA for support for a 2 State solution was spent BEFORE Netanyahu called for an early election.

Did President Barack Obama spend U.S. taxpayer dollars trying to toss Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu out of office?

Blog claims U.S. funded anti-Netanyahu election effort in Israel
By Jon Greenberg on Wednesday, March 25th, 2015 at 12:12 p.m.

That’s a claim floating around conservative media websites in recent days. A conservative blog called Fire Andrea Mitchell was one of several to relay a Fox News report about alleged back-door funding in the recent Israeli elections. On March 16, 2015, the blogger wrote "Obama has been sending taxpayer dollars, at least $350,000 to fund anti-Likud, anti Netanyahu groups in Israel for tomorrow’s election."

Fox News said a congressional investigation into the matter is underway, and presidential contender Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, along with Rep. Lee Zeldin, R-N.Y., sent a letter about this to federal officials "to express our strong concerns over recent media reports."

What are the facts of the matter?

The basis of the claim

In September 2013, the State Department funded two projects run by OneVoice, a New York nonprofit. The OneVoice mission is clear -- to advance a two-state solution in Israel and the Palestinian territories.

"Through OneVoice, young grassroots activists in Israel and Palestine are equipped with the knowledge and skills to be heard as they build momentum and a constituency for the two-state solution locally and internationally," the organization wrote in its 2013 annual report.

Affiliates OneVoice Israel got $233,500 from the State Department to spend in Israel and OneVoice Palestine got another $115,776 to spend in the Palestinian Territories. That adds up to a little more than $349,000.

The question is: Do those contributions amount to funding "anti-Likud, anti-Netanyahu groups in Israel for tomorrow’s election"?

How OneVoice says the money was spent

Given that residents of the Palestinian Territories can’t vote in national Israeli elections, it’s hard to see how money spent there would influence voters in Israel. That leave us to account for $233,500.

Payton Knopf, senior director of global communications for OneVoice, said the money helped fund a series of "town-hall style meetings on university campuses and provided support to the Knesset Caucus for the Two-State Solution in organizing a meeting with 300 Israeli students and (Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud) Abbas in February 2014."

Knopf told us the State Department money was spent by November 2014 -- nearly four months ago. OneVoice, he said, never "spent any U.S. government funds in connection with the recent elections in Israel. Claims to the contrary are simply wrong."

There are two important points to unpack there. If OneVoice says it spent the money by November 2014, that would be before the Israeli elections were even scheduled. That happened in December after Netanyahu called for early elections.

The State Department said in a briefing that "no payment was made to OneVoice after November 2014."

That would contradict the way the claim in the blog was phrased. "Has been sending" says the money continues to flow. In this case the money was spent and disbursed months ago.

Second, while Netanyahu waffled on the notion of a two-state solution in the run-up to the Israeli elections, the prime minister had been on record supporting a two-state strategy in November and the months before it.


Read more:
Blog claims U.S. funded anti-Netanyahu election effort in Israel

I found the Senate investigation and again, there was no wrong doing by Obama and the State Department, though they suggest being more careful next time around, with restrictions on how the USA efforts could not be utilized for other purposes later on.

Senate report: State Dept. grant also aided campaign to unseat Netanyahu

Oh Politifact and of course they would be so honest about politics....we all know the fact checkers are as biased as the news they work for.........guys the jig is up......we know how the system works.

Politifact
Has this Media Source failed a fact check? LET US KNOW HERE.

Share:

LEAST BIASED
These sources have minimal bias and use very few loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes). The reporting is factual and usually sourced. These are the most credible media sources. See all Least Biases sources.

• Overall, this update reveals a slight leftward shift in Politifact’s fact checking selection, but not enough to move them from the least biased category.

Detailed Report
Factual Reporting: HIGH
Country: USA
World Press Freedom Rank: USA 45/180
[...]
Analysis / Bias

In review, Politifact has been called left biased by some right leaning sources. In fact, there is a source called Politifact Bias that is dedicated to pointing out Politifact’s biases. Politifact is also a signatory of the International Fact Checking Network (IFCN), which outlines a code principles for credible fact checkers.

Politifact uses minimal loaded language in their articles and headlines such as this: Trump falsely claims NATO countries owe United States money for defense spending. All information is well sourced to credible media and/or direct statements from experts in the field or the politicians themselves. Fact Check selection leans slightly left as more right wing politicians are currently fact checked. This may be due to bias or the fact that Republicans currently control all branches of government and hence there is more to check. In fact, there was a recent academic study done that shows Politifact employs minimal bias through wording.
[...]
Politifact - Media Bias/Fact Check

yeah and all this shit comes from the same people.......the media has been exposed. the problem with this post is, you're comparing ultra left with ultra ultra ultra left........

i'm not comparing anything.

 

[buckeye45_73]

He basically has.....no prosecutor comes out and says soandso was exonerated....please show me that? Trump is right, he dealt with 3 years of bullshit like spying on his campaign(which you guys mocked, but he was RIGHT) and he didn't do shit.......not only him but NO AMERICAN helped Russia in ANY WAY........that's the closest you will ever get to a complete exoneration from a prosecutor.

& no american, like flynn or manafort or papadopolous or sessions or kushner or donny jr lied to the feds about their russian contacts....

well some did and were punished. others nope. I'd say anyone lying was stupid. but that isn't collusion and it isn't trump nor his campaign colluding. so still trying to figure where you're gonna find that needle in the needles.

no reason to lie if there was nothing to hide.

I agree. if they were hiding something then mueller should have found it correct?

not if the investigation was shut done b4 it was finished. & lest ye forget - - - mueller outsourced stuff that was outside his mandate. SDNY & the NY AG are still on the job.

2 years man, they indicted Manafort......but somehow not Trump......it's time for you to wake up and live in reality

 

[playtime]

i'll tell you the same thing i've told another whackjob poster not too long ago:

so how many years ago was that exchange again? guess obama is running on CPT huh? when ARE those shenanigans you think are gonna happen anyway? i mean after all - he imposed sanctions on them thar roooskies, AND expelled roooskie spies, AND closed down their compounds. what has donny done? oh yea..... it took a veto act of congress to finally imposed even more stringent sanctions. & he didn't he just have one lifted against a russian?

why yes.... yes he did.

So...yes, Clinton sold Uranium rights to the Russians.

Thank you!

uranium one - - - debunked.

but i was talking about obama's so called 'incriminating' video.

only in a leftists dream.

proven. & with credible non biased links...

never investigated.

because there isn't anything to investigate. she couldn't get that deal done without 8 other agencies.

 

[buckeye45_73]

I've been a Realtor for 40+ years. Nothing on the level of the Great Donald Trump. You never, ever discuss a deal in the making. Word gets out and the price skyrockets. NO COLLUSION!

PLEASE show us the MASSIVE INTERFERENCE PLAN. Please show where it was "unlike anything they had ever done before". So what? NO COLLUSION!

Obama admin. sent taxpayer money to campaign to oust Netanyahu
Stephen Dinan - The Washington Times - Tuesday, July 12, 2016
The State Department paid hundreds of thousands of dollars in taxpayers grants to an Israeli group that used the money to build a campaign to oust Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in last year’s Israeli parliamentary elections, a congressional investigation concluded Tuesday.

Obama admin. sent taxpayer money to campaign to oust Netanyahu

Obama’s Meddling in Foreign Elections: Six Examples
by STEVE BALDWIN

June 14, 2017, 12:00 AM
[...]
Obama’s State Department gave $350,000 to a group called the “One Voice Movement (OVM),” for supporting “peace negotiations between Israel and Palestine.” However, the State Department then used leftover funds to organize an effort against Netanyahu’s reelection. OVM contracted out a group called “V15,” which in turned hired five campaign experts from the U.S., including Obama’s field director from his last presidential campaign. As the Weekly Standard’s Jim Swift wrote, “once the infrastructure was built, it was used in an attempt to topple the government of one of America’s closest allies.”
[...]
Obama’s Meddling in Foreign Elections: Six Examples | The American Spectator | Politics is too important to be taken seriously.

Nope! All the money spent by the USA for support for a 2 State solution was spent BEFORE Netanyahu called for an early election.

Did President Barack Obama spend U.S. taxpayer dollars trying to toss Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu out of office?

Blog claims U.S. funded anti-Netanyahu election effort in Israel
By Jon Greenberg on Wednesday, March 25th, 2015 at 12:12 p.m.

That’s a claim floating around conservative media websites in recent days. A conservative blog called Fire Andrea Mitchell was one of several to relay a Fox News report about alleged back-door funding in the recent Israeli elections. On March 16, 2015, the blogger wrote "Obama has been sending taxpayer dollars, at least $350,000 to fund anti-Likud, anti Netanyahu groups in Israel for tomorrow’s election."

Fox News said a congressional investigation into the matter is underway, and presidential contender Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, along with Rep. Lee Zeldin, R-N.Y., sent a letter about this to federal officials "to express our strong concerns over recent media reports."

What are the facts of the matter?

The basis of the claim

In September 2013, the State Department funded two projects run by OneVoice, a New York nonprofit. The OneVoice mission is clear -- to advance a two-state solution in Israel and the Palestinian territories.

"Through OneVoice, young grassroots activists in Israel and Palestine are equipped with the knowledge and skills to be heard as they build momentum and a constituency for the two-state solution locally and internationally," the organization wrote in its 2013 annual report.

Affiliates OneVoice Israel got $233,500 from the State Department to spend in Israel and OneVoice Palestine got another $115,776 to spend in the Palestinian Territories. That adds up to a little more than $349,000.

The question is: Do those contributions amount to funding "anti-Likud, anti-Netanyahu groups in Israel for tomorrow’s election"?

How OneVoice says the money was spent

Given that residents of the Palestinian Territories can’t vote in national Israeli elections, it’s hard to see how money spent there would influence voters in Israel. That leave us to account for $233,500.

Payton Knopf, senior director of global communications for OneVoice, said the money helped fund a series of "town-hall style meetings on university campuses and provided support to the Knesset Caucus for the Two-State Solution in organizing a meeting with 300 Israeli students and (Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud) Abbas in February 2014."

Knopf told us the State Department money was spent by November 2014 -- nearly four months ago. OneVoice, he said, never "spent any U.S. government funds in connection with the recent elections in Israel. Claims to the contrary are simply wrong."

There are two important points to unpack there. If OneVoice says it spent the money by November 2014, that would be before the Israeli elections were even scheduled. That happened in December after Netanyahu called for early elections.

The State Department said in a briefing that "no payment was made to OneVoice after November 2014."

That would contradict the way the claim in the blog was phrased. "Has been sending" says the money continues to flow. In this case the money was spent and disbursed months ago.

Second, while Netanyahu waffled on the notion of a two-state solution in the run-up to the Israeli elections, the prime minister had been on record supporting a two-state strategy in November and the months before it.


Read more:
Blog claims U.S. funded anti-Netanyahu election effort in Israel

I found the Senate investigation and again, there was no wrong doing by Obama and the State Department, though they suggest being more careful next time around, with restrictions on how the USA efforts could not be utilized for other purposes later on.

Senate report: State Dept. grant also aided campaign to unseat Netanyahu

Oh Politifact and of course they would be so honest about politics....we all know the fact checkers are as biased as the news they work for.........guys the jig is up......we know how the system works.

Politifact
Has this Media Source failed a fact check? LET US KNOW HERE.

Share:

LEAST BIASED
These sources have minimal bias and use very few loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes). The reporting is factual and usually sourced. These are the most credible media sources. See all Least Biases sources.

• Overall, this update reveals a slight leftward shift in Politifact’s fact checking selection, but not enough to move them from the least biased category.

Detailed Report
Factual Reporting: HIGH
Country: USA
World Press Freedom Rank: USA 45/180
[...]
Analysis / Bias

In review, Politifact has been called left biased by some right leaning sources. In fact, there is a source called Politifact Bias that is dedicated to pointing out Politifact’s biases. Politifact is also a signatory of the International Fact Checking Network (IFCN), which outlines a code principles for credible fact checkers.

Politifact uses minimal loaded language in their articles and headlines such as this: Trump falsely claims NATO countries owe United States money for defense spending. All information is well sourced to credible media and/or direct statements from experts in the field or the politicians themselves. Fact Check selection leans slightly left as more right wing politicians are currently fact checked. This may be due to bias or the fact that Republicans currently control all branches of government and hence there is more to check. In fact, there was a recent academic study done that shows Politifact employs minimal bias through wording.
[...]
Politifact - Media Bias/Fact Check

yeah and all this shit comes from the same people.......the media has been exposed. the problem with this post is, you're comparing ultra left with ultra ultra ultra left........

i'm not comparing anything.

you just posted a comparison...........are you really that stupid?

 

[playtime]

uranium one - - - debunked.

but i was talking about obama's so called 'incriminating' video.

Debunked? how? the collusion story was debunked, there was a real investigation and you got nothing.....show me the investigation into Uranium One?

find the links i posted. hillary didn't get that uranium one deal done on her own, nor could have.

let's get a special counsel and find out for sure. That seems fair. I mean two and a half years to find a nothing burger russia bot on trump, let's see if it was indeed on the other side from within.

lol... why haven't the (R)s done that already? i mean they've had a hard on for decades to nail hillary on something.... ANYTHING. they could have gone after her for that... but didn't.... cause they couldn't cause they knew they would fail .... again.

Good question....probably people like McCain and Graham, but Graham now see the democrats the way we do.......you may get that special counsel.......oooh and that's gonna be a good one......yummmmy

lindsey graham is up for reelection in 2020. ya................. that will be fun.

 

[playtime]

Nope! All the money spent by the USA for support for a 2 State solution was spent BEFORE Netanyahu called for an early election.

Did President Barack Obama spend U.S. taxpayer dollars trying to toss Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu out of office?

Blog claims U.S. funded anti-Netanyahu election effort in Israel
By Jon Greenberg on Wednesday, March 25th, 2015 at 12:12 p.m.

That’s a claim floating around conservative media websites in recent days. A conservative blog called Fire Andrea Mitchell was one of several to relay a Fox News report about alleged back-door funding in the recent Israeli elections. On March 16, 2015, the blogger wrote "Obama has been sending taxpayer dollars, at least $350,000 to fund anti-Likud, anti Netanyahu groups in Israel for tomorrow’s election."

Fox News said a congressional investigation into the matter is underway, and presidential contender Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, along with Rep. Lee Zeldin, R-N.Y., sent a letter about this to federal officials "to express our strong concerns over recent media reports."

What are the facts of the matter?

The basis of the claim

In September 2013, the State Department funded two projects run by OneVoice, a New York nonprofit. The OneVoice mission is clear -- to advance a two-state solution in Israel and the Palestinian territories.

"Through OneVoice, young grassroots activists in Israel and Palestine are equipped with the knowledge and skills to be heard as they build momentum and a constituency for the two-state solution locally and internationally," the organization wrote in its 2013 annual report.

Affiliates OneVoice Israel got $233,500 from the State Department to spend in Israel and OneVoice Palestine got another $115,776 to spend in the Palestinian Territories. That adds up to a little more than $349,000.

The question is: Do those contributions amount to funding "anti-Likud, anti-Netanyahu groups in Israel for tomorrow’s election"?

How OneVoice says the money was spent

Given that residents of the Palestinian Territories can’t vote in national Israeli elections, it’s hard to see how money spent there would influence voters in Israel. That leave us to account for $233,500.

Payton Knopf, senior director of global communications for OneVoice, said the money helped fund a series of "town-hall style meetings on university campuses and provided support to the Knesset Caucus for the Two-State Solution in organizing a meeting with 300 Israeli students and (Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud) Abbas in February 2014."

Knopf told us the State Department money was spent by November 2014 -- nearly four months ago. OneVoice, he said, never "spent any U.S. government funds in connection with the recent elections in Israel. Claims to the contrary are simply wrong."

There are two important points to unpack there. If OneVoice says it spent the money by November 2014, that would be before the Israeli elections were even scheduled. That happened in December after Netanyahu called for early elections.

The State Department said in a briefing that "no payment was made to OneVoice after November 2014."

That would contradict the way the claim in the blog was phrased. "Has been sending" says the money continues to flow. In this case the money was spent and disbursed months ago.

Second, while Netanyahu waffled on the notion of a two-state solution in the run-up to the Israeli elections, the prime minister had been on record supporting a two-state strategy in November and the months before it.


Read more:
Blog claims U.S. funded anti-Netanyahu election effort in Israel

I found the Senate investigation and again, there was no wrong doing by Obama and the State Department, though they suggest being more careful next time around, with restrictions on how the USA efforts could not be utilized for other purposes later on.

Senate report: State Dept. grant also aided campaign to unseat Netanyahu

Oh Politifact and of course they would be so honest about politics....we all know the fact checkers are as biased as the news they work for.........guys the jig is up......we know how the system works.

Politifact
Has this Media Source failed a fact check? LET US KNOW HERE.

Share:

LEAST BIASED
These sources have minimal bias and use very few loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes). The reporting is factual and usually sourced. These are the most credible media sources. See all Least Biases sources.

• Overall, this update reveals a slight leftward shift in Politifact’s fact checking selection, but not enough to move them from the least biased category.

Detailed Report
Factual Reporting: HIGH
Country: USA
World Press Freedom Rank: USA 45/180
[...]
Analysis / Bias

In review, Politifact has been called left biased by some right leaning sources. In fact, there is a source called Politifact Bias that is dedicated to pointing out Politifact’s biases. Politifact is also a signatory of the International Fact Checking Network (IFCN), which outlines a code principles for credible fact checkers.

Politifact uses minimal loaded language in their articles and headlines such as this: Trump falsely claims NATO countries owe United States money for defense spending. All information is well sourced to credible media and/or direct statements from experts in the field or the politicians themselves. Fact Check selection leans slightly left as more right wing politicians are currently fact checked. This may be due to bias or the fact that Republicans currently control all branches of government and hence there is more to check. In fact, there was a recent academic study done that shows Politifact employs minimal bias through wording.
[...]
Politifact - Media Bias/Fact Check

yeah and all this shit comes from the same people.......the media has been exposed. the problem with this post is, you're comparing ultra left with ultra ultra ultra left........

i'm not comparing anything.

you just posted a comparison...........are you really that stupid?

what did i compare? i posted a media bias check that shows the standards for such an entity to be considered truthful.

 

[Clipper]

Speaking of lying...

I remember back in the day, when Care pretended to be Catholic in order to have more credibility when her job was to convince young Christian girls that abortion was cool.

Then she was glorifying the butchers who abuse women and killed babies.

Now she just lies for Hillary.

Care, are there actually people in your world who fall for your lies?

Tell us..are you a teacher? Cuz you definitely have that creepy vibe.

What's with the attack on teacher's, assclown? Did one of them spank your booty when you were in grade school?

 

[Clipper]

You foul lying skank, you said that nobody had ever suggested it ,that nobody had ever breathed it.

You're a liar and a treasonous, baby killing whore. Go back to your rock and stuff yourself under it. You are nothing but flapping cocksucking lips for the enemies of the US and humanity.

Holy shit. You're batshit crazy.

You think because some moron uttered some crazy shit in a closet somewhere that it vindicates your insane accusations?

Oh...

You must be a care sock, you're trying to float the same lie.

I give up, what's a care sock?

A Care4all sock..a second account. Or fifth account.

Your another Trump genius, right Ace?

 

[jc456]

So...yes, Clinton sold Uranium rights to the Russians.

Thank you!

uranium one - - - debunked.

but i was talking about obama's so called 'incriminating' video.

only in a leftists dream.

proven. & with credible non biased links...

never investigated.

because there isn't anything to investigate. she couldn't get that deal done without 8 other agencies.

Well there’s nothing showing Russia and yet two years investment

 

[buckeye45_73]

I've been a Realtor for 40+ years. Nothing on the level of the Great Donald Trump. You never, ever discuss a deal in the making. Word gets out and the price skyrockets. NO COLLUSION!

PLEASE show us the MASSIVE INTERFERENCE PLAN. Please show where it was "unlike anything they had ever done before". So what? NO COLLUSION!

Obama admin. sent taxpayer money to campaign to oust Netanyahu
Stephen Dinan - The Washington Times - Tuesday, July 12, 2016
The State Department paid hundreds of thousands of dollars in taxpayers grants to an Israeli group that used the money to build a campaign to oust Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in last year’s Israeli parliamentary elections, a congressional investigation concluded Tuesday.

Obama admin. sent taxpayer money to campaign to oust Netanyahu

Obama’s Meddling in Foreign Elections: Six Examples
by STEVE BALDWIN

June 14, 2017, 12:00 AM
[...]
Obama’s State Department gave $350,000 to a group called the “One Voice Movement (OVM),” for supporting “peace negotiations between Israel and Palestine.” However, the State Department then used leftover funds to organize an effort against Netanyahu’s reelection. OVM contracted out a group called “V15,” which in turned hired five campaign experts from the U.S., including Obama’s field director from his last presidential campaign. As the Weekly Standard’s Jim Swift wrote, “once the infrastructure was built, it was used in an attempt to topple the government of one of America’s closest allies.”
[...]
Obama’s Meddling in Foreign Elections: Six Examples | The American Spectator | Politics is too important to be taken seriously.

Nope! All the money spent by the USA for support for a 2 State solution was spent BEFORE Netanyahu called for an early election.

Did President Barack Obama spend U.S. taxpayer dollars trying to toss Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu out of office?

Blog claims U.S. funded anti-Netanyahu election effort in Israel
By Jon Greenberg on Wednesday, March 25th, 2015 at 12:12 p.m.

That’s a claim floating around conservative media websites in recent days. A conservative blog called Fire Andrea Mitchell was one of several to relay a Fox News report about alleged back-door funding in the recent Israeli elections. On March 16, 2015, the blogger wrote "Obama has been sending taxpayer dollars, at least $350,000 to fund anti-Likud, anti Netanyahu groups in Israel for tomorrow’s election."

Fox News said a congressional investigation into the matter is underway, and presidential contender Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, along with Rep. Lee Zeldin, R-N.Y., sent a letter about this to federal officials "to express our strong concerns over recent media reports."

What are the facts of the matter?

The basis of the claim

In September 2013, the State Department funded two projects run by OneVoice, a New York nonprofit. The OneVoice mission is clear -- to advance a two-state solution in Israel and the Palestinian territories.

"Through OneVoice, young grassroots activists in Israel and Palestine are equipped with the knowledge and skills to be heard as they build momentum and a constituency for the two-state solution locally and internationally," the organization wrote in its 2013 annual report.

Affiliates OneVoice Israel got $233,500 from the State Department to spend in Israel and OneVoice Palestine got another $115,776 to spend in the Palestinian Territories. That adds up to a little more than $349,000.

The question is: Do those contributions amount to funding "anti-Likud, anti-Netanyahu groups in Israel for tomorrow’s election"?

How OneVoice says the money was spent

Given that residents of the Palestinian Territories can’t vote in national Israeli elections, it’s hard to see how money spent there would influence voters in Israel. That leave us to account for $233,500.

Payton Knopf, senior director of global communications for OneVoice, said the money helped fund a series of "town-hall style meetings on university campuses and provided support to the Knesset Caucus for the Two-State Solution in organizing a meeting with 300 Israeli students and (Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud) Abbas in February 2014."

Knopf told us the State Department money was spent by November 2014 -- nearly four months ago. OneVoice, he said, never "spent any U.S. government funds in connection with the recent elections in Israel. Claims to the contrary are simply wrong."

There are two important points to unpack there. If OneVoice says it spent the money by November 2014, that would be before the Israeli elections were even scheduled. That happened in December after Netanyahu called for early elections.

The State Department said in a briefing that "no payment was made to OneVoice after November 2014."

That would contradict the way the claim in the blog was phrased. "Has been sending" says the money continues to flow. In this case the money was spent and disbursed months ago.

Second, while Netanyahu waffled on the notion of a two-state solution in the run-up to the Israeli elections, the prime minister had been on record supporting a two-state strategy in November and the months before it.


Read more:
Blog claims U.S. funded anti-Netanyahu election effort in Israel

I found the Senate investigation and again, there was no wrong doing by Obama and the State Department, though they suggest being more careful next time around, with restrictions on how the USA efforts could not be utilized for other purposes later on.

Senate report: State Dept. grant also aided campaign to unseat Netanyahu

Oh Politifact and of course they would be so honest about politics....we all know the fact checkers are as biased as the news they work for.........guys the jig is up......we know how the system works.

Politifact
Has this Media Source failed a fact check? LET US KNOW HERE.

Share:

LEAST BIASED
These sources have minimal bias and use very few loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes). The reporting is factual and usually sourced. These are the most credible media sources. See all Least Biases sources.

• Overall, this update reveals a slight leftward shift in Politifact’s fact checking selection, but not enough to move them from the least biased category.

Detailed Report
Factual Reporting: HIGH
Country: USA
World Press Freedom Rank: USA 45/180
[...]
Analysis / Bias

In review, Politifact has been called left biased by some right leaning sources. In fact, there is a source called Politifact Bias that is dedicated to pointing out Politifact’s biases. Politifact is also a signatory of the International Fact Checking Network (IFCN), which outlines a code principles for credible fact checkers.

Politifact uses minimal loaded language in their articles and headlines such as this: Trump falsely claims NATO countries owe United States money for defense spending. All information is well sourced to credible media and/or direct statements from experts in the field or the politicians themselves. Fact Check selection leans slightly left as more right wing politicians are currently fact checked. This may be due to bias or the fact that Republicans currently control all branches of government and hence there is more to check. In fact, there was a recent academic study done that shows Politifact employs minimal bias through wording.
[...]
Politifact - Media Bias/Fact Check

Politifact!

& yet your silly gif doesn't change any facts that they are non biased, & credible. now please post something from gatewaypundit to tell the truth!!!! lol...thanx for playing.

that's the point, the media is no different that the gateway pundit.....in fact in the biggest investigation in decades, the gatewaypundit was more objective and true than the media......think about that....

 

[Hiryuu]

Supposedly the Mueller Report says that there was no "collusion".

So why did all those people lie...about Russia and meetings with Russians?

Because the Russians are not from Guatemala, at which point no one would have even asked them for an ID and the people pulling their hair out over President Trump would be laying out the red carpet for whatever assistance they could provide in our election process.

 

[Markle]

& yet your silly gif doesn't change any facts that they are non biased, & credible. now please post something from gatewaypundit to tell the truth!!!! lol...thanx for playing.

Politifact is...NON-BIASED? They are owned by the far left newspaper, the Tampa Bay Times. They are housed in the same building with all the same writers AND editor.

 

[Zorro!]

Do think Sessions 5 second encounter with a Russian at a huge event was proof of collusion?

Not for you......you're too far up Trump's ass.......but for others

First and most obviously, if Sessions did indeed meet Kislyak three times in 2016, why did he only admit two meetings? That omission was either deliberate or accidental. We need to know which, in order to know why. This also resurrects the question of why Sessions did not admit to meeting the Russian ambassador on his attorney general background investigation forms. The Department of Justice says Sessions was advised not to do so by the FBI investigator. But did Sessions tell that investigator he had three meetings with Kislyak or two?

Second, if there was a third meeting, we need to know what Kislyak and Sessions discussed.

The Russian ambassador has been openly outed by U.S. officials as the effective station chief of Russian SVR/GRU intelligence operations in the United States. Any off-the-books meetings with senior Trump campaign/administration officials are thus concerning. As I've noted before, Russia's intelligence-operation strategy is exceptionally aggressive. Even if Sessions discussed the weather at a third meeting, the Russians may have had other reasons for being there.

Ultimately, if a third meeting did indeed take place, it raises questions as to what Sessions was thinking. It strains the imagination to believe Sessions was unaware that the Russian ambassador is closely monitored by the FBI. That has been standard practice since the beginning of the Cold War. And again: When they did meet, what were Sessions and Kislyak talking about?

How many times did Attorney General Jeff Sessions meet with Russian Ambassador Sergei Kislyak?

You were so self-righteous when you posted this, but now Mueller has shown that it was a bunch of lies.

The Atlantic accuses Jeff Sessions

In June 2017, the combustible young reporter Julia Ioffe wrote an article for The Atlantic, running to several thousand words, that cast doubt on former Attorney General Jeff Sessions’ claim that he didn’t meet with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak as a Trump surrogate but rather as a matter of routine in his role at the time as a US senator. The Sessions-Kislyak meeting, Ioffe suggested, amounted to yet more shady Russian influence on the Trump camp. Chalk Ioffe’s reportorial credibility as another casualty of the Mueller report, which noted that the meeting in question didn’t “include any more than a passing mention of the presidential campaign.”

Your claim was total bullshit yet you pushed it with the zeal of the newly converted. What have you learned from this experience?