Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation as Russians Pressed for Control of Uranium Company

[spursncowboys]

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-foundation-as-russians-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html

[The Reckoning]

I'd much rather have Obama for a third term than this lady

[spursncowboys]

They both have the same chance of becoming president in 2016

[The Reckoning]

doubt it. clinton already has america pressed under her thumb because of her gender and husband. she's just coasting at this point. the only thing that stopped her in 2008 was an equally PC demographic. I don't think obama was actually that bad of a president despite the whole Patriot Act extension, labor laws, complete healthcare fuckup and diplomatic flubs. He is more of a neo-con than bush was imo.

i've been terrified of hillary trying to be president since the 90s...seems like it was one of those things that was only a matter of time tbh.

[Winehole23]

I would say HRC has name recognition, a little more experience and a lot of cash. Her political ambition has been plain since she rose to national prominence in the 1990s.

HRC was lucky to lose to Obama, she'd not have another chance next year had she lost to McCain. It's unsurprising she's running again.

[Winehole23]

besides HRC being a woman, what's so scary, may I ask?

[The Reckoning]

besides HRC being a woman, what's so scary, may I ask?


her being a woman has nothing to do with her being scary. the scary part is that people will vote on her just for being a woman, which has nothing to do with competence. i wish other women like Ann Richards continued to be involved in politics.


she botched healthcare reform in the 90s and resigned her position as SoS amid criticism. do you think she'd be able to take the weight of criticism that the pres has these days?

also, a true president is commander in chief first and foremost. I prefer presidents to have at least a little military experience (imagine clinton commanding troops...) and a solid diplomatic record. If she resigns from the top diplomatic position in the country, what does that say about her ability to be the face of the US on an international scale?

lastly, she's not transparent. but no administration ever is, so that is sadly no longer a factor.


i think you can agree with me that she is in it for herself. at least Bill was like-able as a grass roots guy, but there's really not much connecting her to blue collars anymore.


furthermore, the idea that aristocracy is coming back is scary. Bush v Clinton for president, who would have thought?

put Huntsman back on the ballot. that's a guy with the pull and experience and ability to compromise. he might not have the military experience, but he knows China better than anyone else in the States....that's who we should always be concerned about.

[Winehole23]

furthermore, the idea that aristocracy is coming back is scary. Bush v Clinton for president, who would have thought?saw this one coming from way back, but yeah, dynastic succession is a bug, not a feature.

[The Reckoning]

anyway, my idea of a true liberal, democratic candidate is a commander in chief who's pro-military from a career training standpoint. the military has so many tactile benefits it can provide that college classrooms and professional certifications cannot.

also someone who puts the environment first. invest in green tech and curb dependence on foreign energy. we need to override energy alternatives asap, and that demand for alternative energy will keep gas prices low.

we're killing our environment and all of our non-renewable resources and here we are debating about non-issues like gun laws and prayer in schools.

wake the fuck up people. we won't be here much longer if we keep this up.

[Winehole23]

withstanding the flames of an adversarial press corps and being a credible commander are two desirable traits for POTUS to have. resigning in adversity does not serve HRC well for the innuendos about reliability and toughness that were going to be made anyway.

[The Reckoning]

thanks for picking out points you agree with WH. it's refreshing compared to the usual ankle-biting of other posters over meaningless details.

[Winehole23]

wake the fuck up people. we won't be here much longer if we keep this up.short of the annihilation of the species, there's no limit to how much worse things can get, and there's no guarantee we won't continue to fuck it up for a good while longer.

[The Reckoning]

short of the annihilation of the species, there's no limit to how much worse things can get, and there's no guarantee we won't continue to fuck it up for a good while longer.


lets just say big-fish stocks have fallen 90% since 1950


that means in the ocean, only 10% of fish like cod and halibut are left. the ocean isn't endless. out of sight, out of mind.

mass extinction of this kind has never been seen in the history of the world. yet we want to talk about racism and sexism and whateverism instead. our oceans are dead, and we keep repopulating.

the only solution is to use some of that american ingenuity and overhaul all of the backwash from the industrial age.....or find another planet and terraform it. our attention is too focused on he said/she said rather than taking a good hard look at the future.

those in charge don't care. they'll be long gone before we see any of the true results.

[spursncowboys]

I would say HRC has name recognition, a little more experience and a lot of cash. Her political ambition has been plain since she rose to national prominence in the 1990s.

HRC was lucky to lose to Obama, she'd not have another chance next year had she lost to McCain. It's unsurprising she's running again.
Did you read the article? This is pretty damning IMO.
Do you think the Clinton machine can spin this?
Is this unelectable bad?

[Winehole23]

lets just say big-fish stocks have fallen 90% since 1950


that means in the ocean, only 10% of fish like cod and halibut are left. the ocean isn't endless. out of sight, out of mind.overfishing is real for sure. I read the Kurlansky COD book.

friend of mine wants to put lionfish on his menu. ever had any?

[The Reckoning]

overfishing is real for sure. I read the Kurlansky COD book.

friend of mine wants to put lionfish on his menu. ever had any?


oh yeah they're good. and also an invasive specie without any natural competition. i'd highly recommend making a cuisine out of it because they really are a pest.

i had one stick me good while I was diving actually. not a great feeling.

[Winehole23]

Did you read the article? This is pretty damning IMO.
Do you think the Clinton machine can spin this?
Is this unelectable bad?as laid out in the article, no.

does it look bad? yes.

does it prove anything? no.

does it make HRC unelectable? that's wishful thinking, tbh.

maybe somebody else will find real dirt. between now and election day there's bound to be a bunch of articles like this, painting a big picture and inviting readers to draw their own conclusions.

[Winehole23]

The GOP needs a new hobby horse. Clinton Foundation might be the next Benghazi.

[Wild Cobra]

They both have the same chance of becoming president in 2016

LOL...

Are you saying it's like the lottery?

Your chances are only slightly improved if you play?

[Wild Cobra]

I would say HRC has name recognition, a little more experience and a lot of cash. Her political ambition has been plain since she rose to national prominence in the 1990s.

HRC was lucky to lose to Obama, she'd not have another chance next year had she lost to McCain. It's unsurprising she's running again.
But what has she accomplished in any of her positions?

[Wild Cobra]

her being a woman has nothing to do with her being scary.

I disagree.

What is scary is that the left will nominate her just because they see it as a woman's turn to hold office. Just look at what happened because they thought it was a minority's turn...

[Winehole23]

But what has she accomplished in any of her positions?it doesn't matter. accomplishments and qualifications don't mean much to voters unless they're carrying a grudge against somebody.

[Winehole23]

What is scary is that the left will nominate her just because they see it as a woman's turn to hold office. Just look at what happened because they thought it was a minority's turn...What happened?

[Winehole23]

did America, godliness, capitalism and war cease to exist, like you warned us 8 years ago?

[Wild Cobra]

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-foundation-as-russians-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html




Some will be calling this treason!

[boutons_deux]

Some of the connections between Uranium One and the Clinton Foundation were unearthed by Peter Schweizer :lol :lol :lol, a former fellow at the right-leaning Hoover Institution and author of the forthcoming book “Clinton Cash.” (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/20/us/politics/new-book-clinton-cash-questions-foreign-donations-to-foundation.html)

Whether the donations played any role in the approval of the uranium deal is unknown. :lol :lol

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-foundation-as-russians-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html

[boutons_deux]

Clinton Cash And The Clinton Rule

On March 12, I posted (http://mediamatters.org/blog/2015/03/12/chin-scratchers-take-a-breath/202852) on Media Matters to discuss what I called the Clinton Rule. The Clinton Rule is as follows: There shall be one standard for covering everyone else in public life, and another standard for Hillary and Bill Clinton.

Well this week we got the ultimate proof of the Clinton Rule when The New York Times got its hands on a copy of Clinton Cash, a forthcoming book which purportedly claims that the State Department received favors from foreign entities that donated to The Clinton Foundation. Now, I wasn't the least bit surprised that the conservative media echo chamber immediately reverberated with cries (http://mediamatters.org/research/2015/04/20/fox-news-is-trumpeting-the-latest-anti-clinton/203342) of the "very damning" "bombshell," of a book that "could threaten [Hillary's] campaign." And I say purportedly because almost no one has read the book yet.

Here's the thing that did surprise me:

Never have we seen a more instant classic for followers of the Clinton Rule than with this latest tome. The book isn't even slated to be released for several weeks and yet The New York Times, The Washington Post, and Fox News are in cahoots with the author -- reporting on what might be inside. I'll run you through the playbook.

Let's start with the facts. The star of this latest instance of the Clinton Rule is the author, Peter Schweizer (http://mediamatters.org/research/2015/04/20/clinton-cash-author-peter-schweizers-long-histo/203209).

He's a discredited fringe conservative activist and former political aide to the likes of George W. Bush, Sarah Palin, and Bobby Jindal.

That's a trifecta that pays a high dollar for pushing right wing conspiracies. Schweizer has worked for such "reputable" publications as Breitbart.com --

the same Breitbart.com that once called (http://mediamatters.org/blog/2015/03/09/breitbartcom-gabby-giffords-is-a-human-shield/202809) gun safety advocate Gabby Giffords a "human shield" for the gun safety movement.

His right wing bona fides don't end there.

Schweizer is even listed as a contributor (http://www.amazon.com/Broke-Restore-Trust-Truth-Treasure-ebook/dp/B005A3WDWU) to one of former Fox News host Glenn Beck's books.

Speaking of Schweizer's work -- back in 1998 he took on the "gay subculture" that was "blossoming" at Walt Disney World. In Disney: The Mouse Betrayed (http://www.amazon.com/Disney-Mouse-Betrayed-Corruption-Children/dp/B007MXPB7A) -- which is not listed (http://peterschweizer.com/wordpress/books/) on Schweizer's website with his other works -- he attacked the "gay activism" at the theme park, with special attention for the annual Gay Day at the Magic Kingdom. "There is a lot of openly displayed affection during the event -- holding hands, kissing, and the like," Schweizer wrote. God forbid.

Here's the deal, Peter Schweizer's new book out May 5 is likely to have serious problems -- one embarrassing error (http://mediamatters.org/blog/2015/04/21/thinkprogress-report-schweizer-admits-he-cannot/203361) has reportedly already been found. As Media Matters noted this week, Schweizer has been called out at least ten times (http://mediamatters.org/research/2015/04/20/clinton-cash-author-peter-schweizers-long-histo/203209) by journalists and independent fact checkers for getting his facts wrong in his previous articles and books. His past work has been called "incorrect (http://mediamatters.org/research/2015/04/20/clinton-cash-author-peter-schweizers-long-histo/203209#whitehouse)," "bogus (http://mediamatters.org/research/2015/04/20/clinton-cash-author-peter-schweizers-long-histo/203209#obama)," and "a fatal shortcoming in journalism 101 (http://mediamatters.org/research/2015/04/20/clinton-cash-author-peter-schweizers-long-histo/203209#sebelius)." In short, he's a SERIAL MISINFORMER.

Yet, The New York Times, Washington Post, and Fox News have all made exclusive agreements with Schweizer for early access to pursue (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/20/us/politics/new-book-clinton-cash-questions-foreign-donations-to-foundation.html) "the story lines found in the book." I'm not shocked that Fox News took the shady deal here since Harper Collins, which is publishing Schweizer's book, is also owned by Rupert Murdoch's News Corp. and is the sister company of Fox News' parent company 21st Century Fox. But I'm hard pressed to find any reason why The New York Times and The Washington Post would do the same except for the Clinton Rule.

The rule where every piece of nonsense the press can grab onto about the Clintons gets headline after headline.

But here's the thing, friends. The last time (http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/11/08/from-proud-to-pulled-a-timeline-of-60-minutes-b/196801) I remember a major media outlet hyping a right wing book this much was when CBS' 60 Minutes got duped by a guy whose tall tale included him scaling a 12 foot wall on the side of the diplomatic compound in Benghazi and dispatching a terrorist with his rifle butt. We all know how that ended: a book pulled from publication, a 60 Minutes report retracted, and a "journalistic review" which ended with a CBS reporter and producer taking a leave of absence.

All I'm saying here folks is this: The bottom line is that mainstream media must be up for the challenge. To all the reporters wanting to push the limits and take an advance look into the claims of a guy whose history of reporting is marked by errors and retractions, I say it's time to break the Clinton Rule. But in this case, I'm afraid the smarter bet is that we are going to see the same playbook over and over again.

Again, let me repeat what the Clinton Rule is: There shall be one standard for covering everyone else in public life, and another standard for the Clintons. After the latest antics on the part of The New York Times I am forced to add to the Clinton Rule. At The New York Times when it comes to the Clintons, there are no rules.

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2015/04/23/clinton-cash-and-the-clinton-rule/203379

:lol

It's Back To The Future all over again, as the slandering, lies, witch-hunting of the Clintons in the 1990s is firing up again.

[tlongII]

I guess we know why Hillary deleted all of her emails now.

[TheSanityAnnex]

Clinton Cash And The Clinton Rule

On March 12, I posted (http://mediamatters.org/blog/2015/03/12/chin-scratchers-take-a-breath/202852) on Media Matters to discuss what I called the Clinton Rule. The Clinton Rule is as follows: There shall be one standard for covering everyone else in public life, and another standard for Hillary and Bill Clinton.

Well this week we got the ultimate proof of the Clinton Rule when The New York Times got its hands on a copy of Clinton Cash, a forthcoming book which purportedly claims that the State Department received favors from foreign entities that donated to The Clinton Foundation. Now, I wasn't the least bit surprised that the conservative media echo chamber immediately reverberated with cries (http://mediamatters.org/research/2015/04/20/fox-news-is-trumpeting-the-latest-anti-clinton/203342) of the "very damning" "bombshell," of a book that "could threaten [Hillary's] campaign." And I say purportedly because almost no one has read the book yet.

Here's the thing that did surprise me:

Never have we seen a more instant classic for followers of the Clinton Rule than with this latest tome. The book isn't even slated to be released for several weeks and yet The New York Times, The Washington Post, and Fox News are in cahoots with the author -- reporting on what might be inside. I'll run you through the playbook.

Let's start with the facts. The star of this latest instance of the Clinton Rule is the author, Peter Schweizer (http://mediamatters.org/research/2015/04/20/clinton-cash-author-peter-schweizers-long-histo/203209).

He's a discredited fringe conservative activist and former political aide to the likes of George W. Bush, Sarah Palin, and Bobby Jindal.

That's a trifecta that pays a high dollar for pushing right wing conspiracies. Schweizer has worked for such "reputable" publications as Breitbart.com --

the same Breitbart.com that once called (http://mediamatters.org/blog/2015/03/09/breitbartcom-gabby-giffords-is-a-human-shield/202809) gun safety advocate Gabby Giffords a "human shield" for the gun safety movement.

His right wing bona fides don't end there.

Schweizer is even listed as a contributor (http://www.amazon.com/Broke-Restore-Trust-Truth-Treasure-ebook/dp/B005A3WDWU) to one of former Fox News host Glenn Beck's books.

Speaking of Schweizer's work -- back in 1998 he took on the "gay subculture" that was "blossoming" at Walt Disney World. In Disney: The Mouse Betrayed (http://www.amazon.com/Disney-Mouse-Betrayed-Corruption-Children/dp/B007MXPB7A) -- which is not listed (http://peterschweizer.com/wordpress/books/) on Schweizer's website with his other works -- he attacked the "gay activism" at the theme park, with special attention for the annual Gay Day at the Magic Kingdom. "There is a lot of openly displayed affection during the event -- holding hands, kissing, and the like," Schweizer wrote. God forbid.

Here's the deal, Peter Schweizer's new book out May 5 is likely to have serious problems -- one embarrassing error (http://mediamatters.org/blog/2015/04/21/thinkprogress-report-schweizer-admits-he-cannot/203361) has reportedly already been found. As Media Matters noted this week, Schweizer has been called out at least ten times (http://mediamatters.org/research/2015/04/20/clinton-cash-author-peter-schweizers-long-histo/203209) by journalists and independent fact checkers for getting his facts wrong in his previous articles and books. His past work has been called "incorrect (http://mediamatters.org/research/2015/04/20/clinton-cash-author-peter-schweizers-long-histo/203209#whitehouse)," "bogus (http://mediamatters.org/research/2015/04/20/clinton-cash-author-peter-schweizers-long-histo/203209#obama)," and "a fatal shortcoming in journalism 101 (http://mediamatters.org/research/2015/04/20/clinton-cash-author-peter-schweizers-long-histo/203209#sebelius)." In short, he's a SERIAL MISINFORMER.

Yet, The New York Times, Washington Post, and Fox News have all made exclusive agreements with Schweizer for early access to pursue (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/20/us/politics/new-book-clinton-cash-questions-foreign-donations-to-foundation.html) "the story lines found in the book." I'm not shocked that Fox News took the shady deal here since Harper Collins, which is publishing Schweizer's book, is also owned by Rupert Murdoch's News Corp. and is the sister company of Fox News' parent company 21st Century Fox. But I'm hard pressed to find any reason why The New York Times and The Washington Post would do the same except for the Clinton Rule.

The rule where every piece of nonsense the press can grab onto about the Clintons gets headline after headline.

But here's the thing, friends. The last time (http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/11/08/from-proud-to-pulled-a-timeline-of-60-minutes-b/196801) I remember a major media outlet hyping a right wing book this much was when CBS' 60 Minutes got duped by a guy whose tall tale included him scaling a 12 foot wall on the side of the diplomatic compound in Benghazi and dispatching a terrorist with his rifle butt. We all know how that ended: a book pulled from publication, a 60 Minutes report retracted, and a "journalistic review" which ended with a CBS reporter and producer taking a leave of absence.

All I'm saying here folks is this: The bottom line is that mainstream media must be up for the challenge. To all the reporters wanting to push the limits and take an advance look into the claims of a guy whose history of reporting is marked by errors and retractions, I say it's time to break the Clinton Rule. But in this case, I'm afraid the smarter bet is that we are going to see the same playbook over and over again.

Again, let me repeat what the Clinton Rule is: There shall be one standard for covering everyone else in public life, and another standard for the Clintons. After the latest antics on the part of The New York Times I am forced to add to the Clinton Rule. At The New York Times when it comes to the Clintons, there are no rules.

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2015/04/23/clinton-cash-and-the-clinton-rule/203379

:lol

It's Back To The Future all over again, as the slandering, lies, witch-hunting of the Clintons in the 1990s is firing up again.




His next book is on Jeb Bush.

[boutons_deux]

Conservative Media Float Conspiracy That Obama Made Statement On Drone Strike To Distract From Clinton Cashhttp://cloudfront.mediamatters.org/static/uploader/image/2015/04/23/limbaugh-clinton-cash-conspiracy.jpg

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2015/04/23/conservative-media-float-conspiracy-that-obama/203394

[spursncowboys]

Some will be calling this treason!

I agree that if this is true, it is treasonous.
I think this investigation is a good start point and Hillary needs to start answering questions or be held in contempt

[ElNono]

Haven't been able to catch up to this story yet. Before I start, can OP confirm we can trust the liberal M$M media on this one?

[Clipper Nation]

:lmao Libtards spinning and deflecting as fast as they can

[Infinite_limit]

Russians fault

[spursncowboys]

Haven't been able to catch up to this story yet. Before I start, can OP confirm we can trust the liberal M$M media on this one?

Howard Dean says no.
I think the bias of the msm has been proven to most common sense people. It's an accepted world we love in. So it says allot that wp and nyt published this.

[ElNono]

Howard Dean says no.
I think the bias of the msm has been proven to most common sense people. It's an accepted world we love in. So it says allot that wp and nyt published this.

I saw the headline last night. I was too sleepy to read it, but the thought of "this is getting released now so it doesn't become a campaign bombshell later" did cross my mind, tbh.

[pgardn]

Howard Dean says no.
I think the bias of the msm has been proven to most common sense people. It's an accepted world we love in. So it says allot that wp and nyt published this.

So what press do you see as honest and without bias, I would like a list.

I think the NY Times has a liberal slant.
But I don't dismiss the paper out of hand because of it.

[pgardn]

Some of the connections between Uranium One and the Clinton Foundation were unearthed by Peter Schweizer :lol :lol :lol, a former fellow at the right-leaning Hoover Institution and author of the forthcoming book “Clinton Cash.” (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/20/us/politics/new-book-clinton-cash-questions-foreign-donations-to-foundation.html)

Whether the donations played any role in the approval of the uranium deal is unknown. :lol :lol

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-foundation-as-russians-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html




So let's drop the bigger implications for now.

One Question: Why was the donation NOT disclosed as per agreement with the Obama admin?

[spursncowboys]

So what press do you see as honest and without bias, I would like a list.

I think the NY Times has a liberal slant.
But I don't dismiss the paper out of hand because of it.
USAToday
NYT and most major papers are not just a slant, but a culture. But I don't dismiss it either, though. Also I feel like this point has been said over and over for fifteen years of my adult life, so I really don't want to get into the MSM is/isn't biased.

[spursncowboys]

I saw the headline last night. I was too sleepy to read it, but the thought of "this is getting released now so it doesn't become a campaign bombshell later" did cross my mind, tbh.
Yeah. I thought that too. That and her benghazi hearing coming up in may. It's like they're trying to get all the skeletons out now and overload repubs and then the repubs look bad for going on and on.

[pgardn]

USAToday
NYT and most major papers are not just a slant, but a culture. But I don't dismiss it either, though. Also I feel like this point has been said over and over for fifteen years of my adult life, so I really don't want to get into the MSM is/isn't biased.

So your list?

What do you read, we can't be there.

[pgardn]

So let's drop the bigger implications for now.

One Question: Why was the donation NOT disclosed as per agreement with the Obama admin?

This is a problem for Hillary.
Just this one part is not explained.


The other stuff is gonna take some more digging. And could be huge.

[TeyshaBlue]

:lol mediamatters

[ElNono]

Yeah. I thought that too. That and her benghazi hearing coming up in may. It's like they're trying to get all the skeletons out now and overload repubs and then the repubs look bad for going on and on.

The Republican's biggest problem is that they don't know when to let go. They have somehow turned Benghazi into a meme, amazingly. Didn't even know they were still going with that. I'll be actually surprised if it doesn't backfire by now.

I don't hate Hillary the person, but I'm completely disgusted with Hillary the candidate/politician. I would never vote for her. That's why this story doesn't surprise me at all.

Then again, I can't deny she's a popular candidate. In that sense, that's why I think red team can't afford to put a shitty/fringe candidate out there. I'm just hoping Barry does a couple more fuckups until the election to help out, tbh.

[boutons_deux]

:lol mediamatters

TB :lol Peter Schweizer (http://mediamatters.org/research/2015/04/20/clinton-cash-author-peter-schweizers-long-histo/203209). :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol

[Winehole23]

:lmao Libtards spinning and deflecting as fast as they canmaybe somebody else will find real dirt. there's no smoking gun yet.

[Winehole23]

on the other hand, Whitewater seems to have lost its sailing trim, maybe the furore around Clinton Foundation shenanigans will be the gale that drives popular discourse. Benghazi needs to be put to bed.

[boutons_deux]

NBC News Just Admitted The NY Times' Story Based On Clinton Cash "Doesn't Hold Up That Well," Here's Why

NBC News has conceded that the flimsy anti-Clinton allegations contained in a New York Times report fail to deliver on the hype surrounding them. The Times report was based in part on a chapter from discredited conservative author Peter Schweizer's Clinton Cash, and a series of facts surrounding the story's allegations supports NBC's negative conclusion.

The Times story suggested (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-foundation-as-russians-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=1) that donations to the Clinton Foundation may have influenced Hillary Clinton's State Department, when they signed off on the sale of Uranium One, a Canadian company with uranium mining claims in the U.S., to Rosatom, a Russian atomic energy agency. Alleging that individuals who had previously donated to the Clinton Foundation may have benefited from the deal, theTimes' reporting has been used as the springboard (http://www.politico.com/story/2015/04/mitt-romney-clinton-foundation-donations-bribery-117311.html) for commentary hyping the supposed connection, despite the lack of evidence.

But the April 24 First Read column (http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/first-read/first-read-gop-presidential-hopefuls-mostly-silent-drone-mistake-n347596) on NBCNews.com admits, "upon reflection, that Times article doesn't hold up that well 24 hours after its publication."
Indeed, a series of facts supports NBC's conclusion and unravels the innuendo in the Times piece:




Ian Telfer, who was Uranium One's chairman at the time it was being taken over by Rosatom, did donate money to the Clinton Foundation. However, he told the Financial Post that he committed (http://business.financialpost.com/news/mining/telfer-giustra-deny-they-tried-to-influence-russian-uranium-deal-with-donations-to-clinton-foundation) those funds to the Foundation in 2008, "before Uranium One had any negotiations with the Russians, and the donations he has made since then were part of that initial pledge." Hillary Clinton also did not become secretary of state until 2009.
Frank Giustra, a Canadian businessman who the Times noted also donated to the Clinton Foundation and who owned the predecessor to Uranium One before its sale to the Russians, sold (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-foundation-as-russians-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0) his personal stake in the company in 2007. The proposed sale of Uranium One occurred in 2010. Giustra himself released (http://ceo.ca/2015/04/23/statement-of-frank-giustra/) a statement criticizing the Times' reporting, calling it "wildly speculative, innuendo-laced," and inaccurate, and noting that contrary to the Times' claim that Bill Clinton had flown with him to conclude a stage in the Uranium deal, "Bill Clinton had nothing to do with" that purchase.
The State Department only had one vote on the nine-member (http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/international/foreign-investment/Pages/cfius-members.aspx) Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) that approved the deal. Other agencies, including the Departments of Defense, Homeland Security, Energy, Commerce, and Justice, also weighed in.
The chairman of the CFIUS is the Treasury secretary, not secretary of state.
Rosatom had (http://time.com/3831794/clinton-allies-knock-down-donor-allegations-new-questions-pop-up/) to get approval from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which is an independent agency outside of the secretary of state's influence.
Utah's local nuclear regulator also had (http://time.com/3831794/clinton-allies-knock-down-donor-allegations-new-questions-pop-up/) to sign off on the deal, as it involved mills in the state.
Former assistant secretary of state Jose Fernandez, who was the State Department's principal representative on CFIUS, said (http://www.wsj.com/articles/gifts-to-hillary-clintons-family-charity-are-scrutinized-in-wake-of-book-1429754883), "Secretary Clinton never intervened with me on any CFIUS matter."


Other media outlets have found (http://mediamatters.org/research/2015/04/23/media-admit-schweizer-reporting-contains-no-smo/203393) that this and additional allegations in Schweizer's book about donations to the Clinton Foundation are unpersuasive.

Time magazine noted (http://time.com/3831794/clinton-allies-knock-down-donor-allegations-new-questions-pop-up/) that Schweizer's allegation about Uranium One "is based on little evidence," and "offers no indication of Hillary Clinton's personal involvement in, or even knowledge of the deliberations,"

while CNN's Chris Cuomo noted (http://mediamatters.org/embed/clips/2015/04/23/39691/cnn-newday-20150423-smokinggun) that the "the examples that have come out so far in [The New York Times] were not that impressive."

ABC News reported (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/bill-clinton-cashed-hillary-secretary-state/story?id=30522705&singlePage=true) that Clinton Cash "offers no proof that Hillary Clinton took any direct action to benefit the groups and interests that were paying her husband," while Fox News' Ed Henry noted (http://mediamatters.org/video/2015/04/23/foxs-ed-henry-admits-anti-clinton-author-schwei/203388) "there's a lot that's murky" in Schweitzer's claims.

Even Times writer Patrick Healy admitted that the allegations are "not smoking guns."

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2015/04/24/nbc-news-just-admitted-the-ny-times-story-based/203412

You rightwingnuts suck down every VRWC fabricated outrage, fabricated scandal, LIES, and pure bullshit! :lol

all together now:

BENGHAZI! :lol

[spursncowboys]

maybe somebody else will find real dirt. there's no smoking gun yet.

Enough to ask more questions and demand answers.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

:lmao Libtards spinning and deflecting as fast as they can

In your own words explain the link to us between the Russians and Hillary.

[spursncowboys]

The Republican's biggest problem is that they don't know when to let go. They have somehow turned Benghazi into a meme, amazingly. Didn't even know they were still going with that. I'll be actually surprised if it doesn't backfire by now.

I don't hate Hillary the person, but I'm completely disgusted with Hillary the candidate/politician. I would never vote for her. That's why this story doesn't surprise me at all.

Then again, I can't deny she's a popular candidate. In that sense, that's why I think red team can't afford to put a shitty/fringe candidate out there. I'm just hoping Barry does a couple more fuckups until the election to help out, tbh.

Benghazi is around because of all the unanswered questions.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Benghazi is around because of all the unanswered questions.

Any fool can ask answerable questions.

[boutons_deux]

Benghazi is around because of all the unanswered questions.

:lol how many Repug witch hunting panels said they have found NOTHING to beat on Hillary with? :lol

now this Confederate SC inbred is trying yet again, but will fail. :lol

[tlongII]

:lol mediamatters

[ElNono]

Benghazi is around because of all the unanswered questions.

I dunno, I don't really see it "around" anymore. At least not naturally (ie: some new smoking gun type of thing)

I think back in the day people drew their conclusions and moved on. I feel the average attention span for rehashes is pretty low, and can easily turn into annoying.

[spursncowboys]

I dunno, I don't really see it "around" anymore. At least not naturally (ie: some new smoking gun type of thing)

I think back in the day people drew their conclusions and moved on. I feel the average attention span for rehashes is pretty low, and can easily turn into annoying.

Yeah that's a good point. But Gowdy is going to call hrc in may to answer questions.

[Th'Pusher]

The Republican's biggest problem is that they don't know when to let go. They have somehow turned Benghazi into a meme, amazingly. Didn't even know they were still going with that. I'll be actually surprised if it doesn't backfire by now.

I don't hate Hillary the person, but I'm completely disgusted with Hillary the candidate/politician. I would never vote for her. That's why this story doesn't surprise me at all.

Then again, I can't deny she's a popular candidate. In that sense, that's why I think red team can't afford to put a shitty/fringe candidate out there. I'm just hoping Barry does a couple more fuckups until the election to help out, tbh.EN is One guy I just can't read. Afaik he still thinks Chris Christie is a viable candidates? Like who is your ideal candidate EN?

[spursncowboys]

EN is One guy I just can't read. Afaik he still thinks Chris Christie is a viable candidates? Like who is your ideal candidate EN?
Why wouldn't he be? He's a good speaker. Has a national brand. Can debate. Has big money backers.

[pgardn]

So let's drop the bigger implications for now.

One Question: Why was the donation NOT disclosed as per agreement with the Obama admin?

And again?

[SnakeBoy]

oh yeah they're good. and also an invasive specie without any natural competition. i'd highly recommend making a cuisine out of it because they really are a pest.


That's starting to change. Atlantic groupers and sharks are starting to figure out that lionfish are on the menu.

Pretty cool video here
http://nypost.com/2015/02/26/lionfish-stalked-and-devoured-by-grouper-in-shocking-video/

[ElNono]

EN is One guy I just can't read. Afaik he still thinks Chris Christie is a viable candidates? Like who is your ideal candidate EN?

I'm from NJ, I dislike Chris Christie a lot, but he knows how to make sausage (and eat it too apparently). He would have no problem veering towards the center if that would get him votes.

I'm not sure he is "viable", but I think he's one of the few GOP candidates that realistically would be willing to "adapt" his rhetoric to the middle, which I think in this day and age is critical to win elections.

I don't really have a candidate. I've only been a citizen for about 9 years, so I didn't grow up in this red-team, blue-team battle. Before then, when I had a green card or a work visa, I was merely a spectator, so I could take some distance and look.

I find there's a lot of "dogma" in political philosophies here. For example, I generally prefer fiscal conservatism, but I understand that at certain times, deficit spending makes a lot of sense in the macroeconomic outlook.

On the other hand, I abhor social conservatism. That's non-negotiable for me. I find social conservatives to be like dinosaurs that while their goals might be noble, they're for the most part laughably disconnected from reality.

So, in general, I'm more concerned about self-preservation, and in that sense, I would rather prefer if neither party really gets a chance to entrench themselves in power. That's why I would really like if the next prez is a Republican, and we get some of that pendulum of power swinging.

Plus you can tell Hilary is a neocon/hawk from a mile away.

So there you have it.

[boutons_deux]

Republican Clinton Cash Scandal Collapses Before The Book Is Even Released

The book has not been released yet, but instead of blowing up into a major story that will rock the 2016 election, Clinton Cash is poised to join the dusty pile of failed Clinton conspiracies of years past.

Rand Paul has been talking up Clinton Cash as the game changer that would disqualify Hillary Clinton from office, but what the episode demonstrated is how out of touch with reality Republicans are, and how eager some in the mainstream press (and Spurstalk rightwingnuts, rednecks, bubbas, Kock Bros suckers! :lol ) are to enable the GOP’s delusions.

http://www.politicususa.com/2015/04/25/republican-clinton-cash-scandal-collapses-book-released.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+politicususa%2FfJAl+%28Politi cus+USA+%29

BENGHAZI FOREVER! :lol

[spursncowboys]

So your list?

What do you read, we can't be there.
Huh? My list of what?

[spursncowboys]

pgardn in the morning I watch Morning Joe while I get my kids and myself ready. If I have time, in the day, I go through my feedly, which has SA Investor Daily, USAToday, Lifehacker, Consumerist, Bankrate.org, grantland, deadspin, coffeegeek, sprudge, economist, forbes, entrepreneur, cato, army times, stratfor. At night I watch brett bair. If I listen to talk radio it's Michael Medved. I also check out Drudge, RealClearPolitics. I love reading newspapers. Mainly WSJ but always try the NYT. What's your list professor?

I like long walks on the beach and candlight dinners. I cannot stand bad breathe and people who think you should spend your free time either: reading ridiculous amounts of articles about a particular subject (by different biased writers) to be able to understand a situation; believing that someone who reads or watches a biased writer is then their lap dog, believing everything they believe; or think they can psychoanalyze someone by less than twenty posts on a sports forum. It's pretentious and douchy. Which I am not.

[spursncowboys]

In your own words explain the link to us between the Russians and Hillary.
Not my own words but what do you think?
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/04/23/us/clinton-foundation-donations-uranium-investors.html

[boutons_deux]

Not my own words but what do you think?
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/04/23/us/clinton-foundation-donations-uranium-investors.html





Ian Telfer, who was Uranium One's chairman at the time it was being taken over by Rosatom, did donate money to the Clinton Foundation. However, he told the Financial Post that he committed (http://business.financialpost.com/news/mining/telfer-giustra-deny-they-tried-to-influence-russian-uranium-deal-with-donations-to-clinton-foundation) those funds to the Foundation in 2008, "before Uranium One had any negotiations with the Russians, and the donations he has made since then were part of that initial pledge." Hillary Clinton also did not become secretary of state until 2009.
Frank Giustra, a Canadian businessman who the Times noted also donated to the Clinton Foundation and who owned the predecessor to Uranium One before its sale to the Russians, sold (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-foundation-as-russians-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0) his personal stake in the company in 2007. The proposed sale of Uranium One occurred in 2010. Giustra himself released (http://ceo.ca/2015/04/23/statement-of-frank-giustra/) a statement criticizing the Times' reporting, calling it "wildly speculative, innuendo-laced," and inaccurate, and noting that contrary to the Times' claim that Bill Clinton had flown with him to conclude a stage in the Uranium deal, "Bill Clinton had nothing to do with" that purchase.
The State Department only had one vote on the nine-member (http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/international/foreign-investment/Pages/cfius-members.aspx) Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) that approved the deal. Other agencies, including the Departments of Defense, Homeland Security, Energy, Commerce, and Justice, also weighed in.
The chairman of the CFIUS is the Treasury secretary, not secretary of state.
Rosatom had (http://time.com/3831794/clinton-allies-knock-down-donor-allegations-new-questions-pop-up/) to get approval from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which is an independent agency outside of the secretary of state's influence.
Utah's local nuclear regulator also had (http://time.com/3831794/clinton-allies-knock-down-donor-allegations-new-questions-pop-up/) to sign off on the deal, as it involved mills in the state.
Former assistant secretary of state Jose Fernandez, who was the State Department's principal representative on CFIUS, said (http://www.wsj.com/articles/gifts-to-hillary-clintons-family-charity-are-scrutinized-in-wake-of-book-1429754883), "Secretary Clinton never intervened with me on any CFIUS matter."

[pgardn]

pgardn (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/member.php?u=19184) in the morning I watch Morning Joe while I get my kids and myself ready. If I have time, in the day, I go through my feedly, which has SA Investor Daily, USAToday, Lifehacker, Consumerist, Bankrate.org, grantland, deadspin, coffeegeek, sprudge, economist, forbes, entrepreneur, cato, army times, stratfor. At night I watch brett bair. If I listen to talk radio it's Michael Medved. I also check out Drudge, RealClearPolitics. I love reading newspapers. Mainly WSJ but always try the NYT. What's your list professor?

I like long walks on the beach and candlight dinners. I cannot stand bad breathe and people who think you should spend your free time either: reading ridiculous amounts of articles about a particular subject (by different biased writers) to be able to understand a situation; believing that someone who reads or watches a biased writer is then their lap dog, believing everything they believe; or think they can psychoanalyze someone by less than twenty posts on a sports forum. It's pretentious and douchy. Which I am not.

Thats more than I wanted but thanks.
I like to know what people read so I can check it out and add to my list.
I like foreign affairs in general. But I usually am not close enough to the situation, the history, etc...
I like to read because I can't possibly be intimately associated with topics other people have spent their lives thinking about, or actually living. So when I want to know about Libya, I read. When I want to know about my wife's horse, I ask my wife.

And I am relieved to know you are not douchy and use mouthwash.

[pgardn]

So let's drop the bigger implications for now.

One Question: Why was the donation NOT disclosed as per agreement with the Obama admin?

Boots, what have you got?

[spursncowboys]

Thats more than I wanted but thanks.
I like to know what people read so I can check it out and add to my list.
I like foreign affairs in general. But I usually am not close enough to the situation, the history, etc...
I like to read because I can't possibly be intimately associated with topics other people have spent their lives thinking about, or actually living. So when I want to know about Libya, I read. When I want to know about my wife's horse, I ask my wife.

And I am relieved to know you are not douchy and use mouthwash.
You can take a good look at a T-bone by sticking your head up a bull's ass, but wouldn't you rather take the butcher's word for it? But truthfully, that just seems like a way for the vultures to keep doing what they do. By pushing this notion that "experts" are the only ones who can have a say in something. Especially since the "experts" have the same exact amount of hands on knowledge as us.

Oh I also like PoachedEgg.
foreign affairs interests me too. If you have any good sites, I would love to add to my list. realclearpolitics has a defense and history section that has a good collection. It's not right leaning like their main page is. But I'm a conservative so maybe it just seems like common sense to me.

[Winehole23]

That's starting to change. Atlantic groupers and sharks are starting to figure out that lionfish are on the menu.

Pretty cool video here
http://nypost.com/2015/02/26/lionfish-stalked-and-devoured-by-grouper-in-shocking-video/essentially, sharks swim witrh their mouths open, ready to engulf incidental or volunteer prey, occasionally including inanimate objects.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Not my own words but what do you think?
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/04/23/us/clinton-foundation-donations-uranium-investors.html

I think you cannot do it in your own words.

[Winehole23]

Not my own words but what do you think?
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/04/23/us/clinton-foundation-donations-uranium-investors.htmlit's a timeline. without more information, it isn't more than that.

[pgardn]

You can take a good look at a T-bone by sticking your head up a bull's ass, but wouldn't you rather take the butcher's word for it? But truthfully, that just seems like a way for the vultures to keep doing what they do. By pushing this notion that "experts" are the only ones who can have a say in something. Especially since the "experts" have the same exact amount of hands on knowledge as us.

Oh I also like PoachedEgg.
foreign affairs interests me too. If you have any good sites, I would love to add to my list. realclearpolitics has a defense and history section that has a good collection. It's not right leaning like their main page is. But I'm a conservative so maybe it just seems like common sense to me.

The Guardian; liberal UK; Bash our frontier mentality of reliance and responsibility of the individual, why can't we just all help each other theme which I find a fascinating general conondrum (good of the individual v. the good of the society) both sides of the political spectrum constantly flip flop on this and don't even realize it. IMO of course.

Der Speigel; Germany; very good on Europeans view and others view of the U.S.; Also good stuff on Euro relations with Russia. The paper criticizes and applauds different American foreign policy stances. "Germany should be more like Amerca, Germany should be less like America" seems to seep out in articles. This is high value stuff for me.

I value honest experts. Maybe my background in science, combined with the ranting on the site (deniers of evolution; boots rants all GMO must be bad), have had too much of an effect. People that have a very poor understanding of a subject feel free to form non logic based, absurd opinions. So this might lead to my relying on experts and disagreement among experts.

[pgardn]

The Clinton Foundation has a complicated structure, including 11 charitable initiatives, some of which have at times incorporated separately and filed

?So the Clinton Foundation made mistakes in reporting foreign donations for taxes, and disclosing. Apparently because complexity and Canadian law. That's all I can tease out as an explanation to my previous question to the board. The above Wa Po today. This is not satisfactory imo.

[boutons_deux]

"boots rants all GMO must be bad"

true. prove otherwise.

[CosmicCowboy]

Ian Telfer, who was Uranium One's chairman at the time it was being taken over by Rosatom, did donate money to the Clinton Foundation. However, he told the Financial Post that he committed (http://business.financialpost.com/news/mining/telfer-giustra-deny-they-tried-to-influence-russian-uranium-deal-with-donations-to-clinton-foundation) those funds to the Foundation in 2008, "before Uranium One had any negotiations with the Russians, and the donations he has made since then were part of that initial pledge." Hillary Clinton also did not become secretary of state until 2009.
Frank Giustra, a Canadian businessman who the Times noted also donated to the Clinton Foundation and who owned the predecessor to Uranium One before its sale to the Russians, sold (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-foundation-as-russians-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=first-column-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0) his personal stake in the company in 2007. The proposed sale of Uranium One occurred in 2010. Giustra himself released (http://ceo.ca/2015/04/23/statement-of-frank-giustra/) a statement criticizing the Times' reporting, calling it "wildly speculative, innuendo-laced," and inaccurate, and noting that contrary to the Times' claim that Bill Clinton had flown with him to conclude a stage in the Uranium deal, "Bill Clinton had nothing to do with" that purchase.
The State Department only had one vote on the nine-member (http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/international/foreign-investment/Pages/cfius-members.aspx) Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) that approved the deal. Other agencies, including the Departments of Defense, Homeland Security, Energy, Commerce, and Justice, also weighed in.
The chairman of the CFIUS is the Treasury secretary, not secretary of state.
Rosatom had (http://time.com/3831794/clinton-allies-knock-down-donor-allegations-new-questions-pop-up/) to get approval from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which is an independent agency outside of the secretary of state's influence.
Utah's local nuclear regulator also had (http://time.com/3831794/clinton-allies-knock-down-donor-allegations-new-questions-pop-up/) to sign off on the deal, as it involved mills in the state.
Former assistant secretary of state Jose Fernandez, who was the State Department's principal representative on CFIUS, said (http://www.wsj.com/articles/gifts-to-hillary-clintons-family-charity-are-scrutinized-in-wake-of-book-1429754883), "Secretary Clinton never intervened with me on any CFIUS matter."



Boo, if this was a Republican would you be defending him/her as strongly?

[boutons_deux]

Boo, if this was a Republican would you be defending him/her as strongly?

pfartin, you're full of bullshit.

As usual, I'm not defending the left, I'm attacking you rightwingnuts and your bullshit, bogus attacks. And this Clinton Cash attack by a hired, notorious hit man with a long history of bullshit, has collapsed from the weight of its own LIES and innuendo.

[CosmicCowboy]

pfartin, you're full of bullshit.

As usual, I'm not defending the left, I'm attacking you rightwingnuts and your bullshit, bogus attacks. And this Clinton Cash attack by a hired, notorious hit man with a long history of bullshit, has collapsed from the weight of its own LIES and innuendo.

Oh, have you read the book? I didn't think it was out yet.

[boutons_deux]

Oh, have you read the book? I didn't think it was out yet.

Those of US who are WELL INFORMED, know the book as been sent all over the media, who have read it, and trashed it.

[ChumpDumper]

Benghazi is around because of all the unanswered questions.Which questions have not been answered, SnC?

As for the OP scandal of the week, this one sounded worse than it turned out to be.

All that's left is for the Republicans to overplay their Benghazi hand again and ensure Clinton's victory in 2016.

[CosmicCowboy]

Those of US who are WELL INFORMED, know the book as been sent all over the media, who have read it, and trashed it.

:lmao

In other words, your RSS Feed told you not to like it.

Way to be INFORMED Boushit. :lol

[boutons_deux]

:lmao

In other words, your RSS Feed told you not to like it.

Way to be INFORMED Boushit. :lol

CC, You Lie. I don't have the book, but LOTS of people do,so they can and do trash, information I have that you obviously don't have.

[CosmicCowboy]

CC, You Lie. I don't have the book, but LOTS of people do,so they can and do trash, information I have that you obviously don't have.

:lmao

[Winehole23]

if we really had to read all the stuff we post about here, that would be, uh, a lot of homework.





(so boutons shared the Daily Kos advance debunking of CLINTON CASH; if he hadn't, there would be something wrong.)

[boutons_deux]

if we really had to read all the stuff we post about here, that would be, uh, a lot of homework.

(so boutons shared the Daily Kos advance debunking of CLINTON CASH; if he hadn't, there would be something wrong.)

so Whine Hole fucks himself yet again by implying ONLY Daily Kos has called Clinton Cash bullshit? :lol

Fox’s Chris Wallace confronts ‘Clinton Cash’ author: ‘You don’t have a single piece of evidence’
http://www.rawstory.com/2015/04/foxs-chris-wallace-confronts-clinton-cash-author-you-dont-have-a-single-piece-of-evidence/

[Winehole23]

not at all. you're obviously an equal opportunity parrot.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MH2VjAuXaxI

:lol He is so full of shit.

[boutons_deux]

:lol He is so full of shit.

It's natural, he's righwingnut, a Repug shill, always lying, slandering, AND WRONG on everything, like all Repugs.

[pgardn]

"boots rants all GMO must be bad"

true. prove otherwise.




You posted about a new cellulotic process that might be used to make alcohol from just stalks and no grain a while back. You know the bacteria used in the beginning stages of this process? GMO bacteria
You were excited about this as I am. We could produce fuel from waste wood and sawdust if we get this right.
Should we dump the research because it involves a GMO "bug"?

You are such a damn fool...