Oh, I guess since Snopes says it is fake, it must be huh.

http://www.snopes.com/hillary-clinton-uranium-russia-deal/

All the MSM is saying it is fake now. I bet Trump is going to release facts on this later.

Are you saying that since Clinton did it, Trump can do it too?

And just curious, did you actually research the claims made in the snopes article or are you just discounting it because of a bias? Ironically you try to disprove one bias source with another which doesn't really solve anything.

I am not really trying to weigh in here but encouraging an actually analysis of the facts rather than an attack on the news agency itself.

Are you saying that since Clinton did it, Trump can do it too?

And just curious, did you actually research the claims made in the snopes article or are you just discounting it because of a bias? Ironically you try to disprove one bias source with another which doesn't really solve anything.

I am not really trying to weigh in here but encouraging an actually analysis of the facts rather than an attack on the news agency itself.

is that your opinion?

is that your opinion?

I am not voicing an opinion, just asking for objectivity.

Wonder, what major MSM covered this story?  ZERO.  The new DOJ needs to investigate and pursue charges against anyone belonging to the Deep State.   This needs to be done this year. 

Are you saying that since Clinton did it, Trump can do it too?

And just curious, did you actually research the claims made in the snopes article or are you just discounting it because of a bias? Ironically you try to disprove one bias source with another which doesn't really solve anything.

I am not really trying to weigh in here but encouraging an actually analysis of the facts rather than an attack on the news agency itself.

I am not disproving anything with the Snopes article. I am being sarcastic with Snopes because Snopes has already been proven to be unreliable.

Also, I am not saying because Clinton did it Trump can do it.

You are missing the point.

The main point is that Clinton's thing is WAY bigger than whatever Trump's thing is with Russia.

I am not disproving anything with the Snopes article. I am being sarcastic with Snopes because Snopes has already been proven to be unreliable.

Also, I am not saying because Clinton did it Trump can do it.

You are missing the point.

The main point is that Clinton's thing is WAY bigger than whatever Trump's thing is with Russia.

Maybe the allegations just aren't true?
http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2016/sep/30/donald-trump/nuclear-claim-donald-trump-says-hillary-clinton-ga/

Obviously this is a deeper research project but I am not going to jump on the bash Clinton bandwagon just because breitbart claimed it.

Maybe the allegations just aren't true?
http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2016/sep/30/donald-trump/nuclear-claim-donald-trump-says-hillary-clinton-ga/

Obviously this is a deeper research project but I am not going to jump on the bash Clinton bandwagon just because breitbart claimed it.

No one is so blind as he who will not see.

I guess after 251521 0315211204 141520 060907211805 152120 200805 03150405, it's no surprise you can't locate one of the biggest scandals in Clinton Foundation history.

Here's a link from that ultra-conservative, alt-right-wing news source, THE NEW YORK TIMES!!

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

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

If you're looking for a video of Clinton shaking hands with Putin while she gets a massive Bank of Moscow check with "Uranium One" in the memo, and a mining deed for Uranium One handed to Putin, then I guess you need to stop replying to these topics.  She's not going to oblige us with that much evidence.  She knows the people are stupid, but there are a few who aren't who know how to use that evidence against her.

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

No one is so blind as he who will not see.

I guess after 251521 0315211204 141520 060907211805 152120 200805 03150405, it's no surprise you can't locate one of the biggest scandals in Clinton Foundation history.

Here's a link from that ultra-conservative, alt-right-wing news source, THE NEW YORK TIMES!!

If you're looking for a video of Clinton shaking hands with Putin while she gets a massive Bank of Moscow check with "Uranium One" in the memo, and a mining deed for Uranium One handed to Putin, then I guess you need to stop replying to these topics.  She's not going to oblige us with that much evidence.  She knows the people are stupid, but there are a few who aren't who know how to use that evidence against her.

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

From the politifact link:
Trump’s previous claim on the topic, made in June 2016, was that Clinton’s State Department "approved the transfer of 20 percent of America’s uranium holdings to Russia, while nine investors in the deal funneled $145 million to the Clinton Foundation."

PolitiFact National rated it Mostly False -- mainly because there is no evidence of a quid pro quo.

You are making an argument based on circumstance. I am not saying it is not suspicious but you will never convict someone based on that.

From the politifact link:
Trump’s previous claim on the topic, made in June 2016, was that Clinton’s State Department "approved the transfer of 20 percent of America’s uranium holdings to Russia, while nine investors in the deal funneled $145 million to the Clinton Foundation."

PolitiFact National rated it Mostly False -- mainly because there is no evidence of a quid pro quo.

You are making an argument based on circumstance. I am not saying it is not suspicious but you will never convict someone based on that.

Read the NYT article first, then post your incorrect opinion.  I hate having to copy and paste for lazy people.

Maybe the allegations just aren't true?
http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2016/sep/30/donald-trump/nuclear-claim-donald-trump-says-hillary-clinton-ga/

Obviously this is a deeper research project but I am not going to jump on the bash Clinton bandwagon just because breitbart claimed it.

unless you are getting raw data and analyzing it you are not doing research. All of what you do is searching the internet with Google and posting links to articles.

Maybe the allegations just aren't true?
http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2016/sep/30/donald-trump/nuclear-claim-donald-trump-says-hillary-clinton-ga/

Obviously this is a deeper research project but I am not going to jump on the bash Clinton bandwagon just because breitbart claimed it.

Why did you cite the "the left-wing, George Soros-linked PolitiFact" for your reply?

http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2017/02/17/fake-news-cnbc-cites-left-wing-politifact-clinton-russian-uranium-story/

(Hyperlinks to references on web page; text only below)

FAKE NEWS: CNBC Cites Left-Wing Politifact in Clinton Russian Uranium Story

CNBC cited the left-wing, George Soros-linked PolitiFact to condemn President Donald Trump’s claims Thursday that Hillary Clinton’s State Department presided over the sale of 20 percent of U.S. uranium to Russia.

“Hillary Clinton gave away 20 percent of the uranium in the United States; she’s close to Russia,” Trump said during the press conference.

“The claim isn’t true,” CNBC energy reporter Tom DiChristopher wrote. “PolitiFact pointed out that 20 percent of uranium capacity is different from 20 percent of existing uranium. Moreover, the State Department was one of nine government agencies that had to sign off on the deals. Other federal and state regulators also had to approve them.”

CNBC citing PolitiFact is how “fake news” spreads.

PolitiFact has repeatedly attempted to rewrite the facts surrounding the Uranium One-Rosatom-Clinton State Department story first reported by The New York Times (NYT) and based on research from the NYT bestseller Clinton Cash.

In July and in September 2016, PolitiFact published stories that flat-out ignored several key facts and conflicts of interest that ultimately proved damaging to Clinton as it related to her involvement in the Russian uranium deal.

DiChristopher notes that “Clinton did not represent the State Department on the panel of agency officials who approve deals such as the Uranium One transaction,” and rightly states: “The representative at the time, former Assistant Secretary Jose Fernandez, told the Times, ‘Mrs. Clinton never intervened with me on any C.F.I.U.S. matter,’ referring to the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States.”

But DiChristopher neglected to mention that Fernandez was admittedly politically motived to distance Clinton from the controversial uranium deal. DiChristopher also failed to report that Fernandez met with Clinton’s presidential campaign chairman, John Podesta, and pledged to “support” the Democratic candidate.

On March 30, 2015, Fernandez wrote an email to Podesta in hopes that the two could meet. On April 17, Fernandez thanked Podesta for meeting him and said, “I would like to do all I can to support Secretary Clinton, and would welcome your advice and help in steering me to the right persons in the campaign.”

Less than a week later, Fernandez was quoted by Time Magazine in an online story calling Clinton Cash’s reporting “absurd conspiracy theories,” adding, “Secretary Clinton never intervened with me on any CFIUS matter.”

The coordination between Fernandez, the Clinton campaign, and its chairman John Podesta is undeniable — and yet CNBC didn’t bother to mention that part of the story.

DiChristopher also failed to inform CNBC readers about how donations to the Clinton Foundation from executives of Russian-owned Uranium One exceeded $145 million, according to the New York Times. In fact, those Clinton Foundation donations spiked just as the deal for Russia’s Rosatom to secure Uranium One was being finalized.

Sure, Clinton’s State Department was one of eight agencies to review and sign off on the uranium deal — but then-Secretary of State Clinton was the only agency head whose family foundation received $145 million in donations from multiple people connected to the deal.

“Uranium One’s chairman used his family foundation to make four donations totaling $2.35 million,” the Times reports. “Those contributions were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons, despite an agreement Mrs. Clinton had struck with the Obama White House to publicly identify all donors. Other people with ties to the company made donations as well.”

DiChristopher also failed to report that Bill Clinton received a $500,000 speaking fee for a speech in Moscow paid for by a Russian government-linked bank connected to the uranium deal.

“And, in one case, a Russian investment bank connected to the deals paid money to Bill Clinton personally, through a half-million-dollar speaker’s fee,” reports the New Yorker.

Why did you cite the "the left-wing, George Soros-linked PolitiFact" for your reply?

That is the echo chamber  he lives in.  Would love to know what name he posts under on the Democrat Underground and HuffPo.

And some people so ready and quick to believe sex assault allegations from the now phantom females trotted out by the left.   

unless you are getting raw data and analyzing it you are not doing research. All of what you do is searching the internet with Google and posting links to articles.

The same level of proof that started this thread. Granted we could go find prime sources, but I figured the same level would be appropriate.

Why did you cite the "the left-wing, George Soros-linked PolitiFact" for your reply?

http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2017/02/17/fake-news-cnbc-cites-left-wing-politifact-clinton-russian-uranium-story/

So you would take issue with me using a politifact source due to alleged bias and then counter with breitbart, which definitely has a bias?

Complaining about a bias in politifact is making a circumstantial ad-hominem instead of attacking/addressing the actual topic.

Please don't confuse my comments as a defense of Clinton, rather just an objective attempt at finding the truth.

So you would take issue with me using a politifact source due to alleged bias and then counter with breitbart, which definitely has a bias?

Complaining about a bias in politifact is making a circumstantial ad-hominem instead of attacking/addressing the actual topic.

Please don't confuse my comments as a defense of Clinton, rather just an objective attempt at finding the truth.

Unless you know the facts stated by a source are or are not truthful, bias is irrelevant.  Just because biased Rolling Stone Mag posts an article on the benefits of legalized marijuana using actual stats from relevant cities doesn't mean the article is wrong.  If you can't verify the data and conclusions using  the references reported, that's your problem, not a reason to claim, "bias."

So you would take issue with me using a politifact source due to alleged bias and then counter with breitbart, which definitely has a bias?

Complaining about a bias in politifact is making a circumstantial ad-hominem instead of attacking/addressing the actual topic.

Please don't confuse my comments as a defense of Clinton, rather just an objective attempt at finding the truth.

Ok there are two things going on here:

1) You are attempting to claim objectivity. Unfortunately, you are not succeeding because of statements you made. Specifically, you said "So you would take issue with me using a politifact source due to alleged bias and then counter with breitbart, which definitely has a bias" which reveals your SUBJECTIVE assessment of these two sources of information.

Your OWN bias is to categorize politifact as having "alleged" bias, while you plainly state that "breitbart, which definitely has a bias"

2) The breitbart article lists several points. Unless you can prove that those points are invalid, the points stand.

How we assess news these days is to take both sides and make your own decision. We have a liberal source, and a conservative source. This is not unlike two lawyers in a courtroom.

You do not throw out both lawyers just because they each have bias for the defendant, and for the plaintiff.

You see what both present, and then make a decision.

So, it was entirely appropriate for me to counter your politifact bias, with a brietbart bias. In fact, the breitbart article specifically points out information that was left out by politifact.

Again, unless you can point by point show that the breitbart information (not opinion) is incorrect, then the breitbart article is an excellent counterbalance to liberal bias presented.