Clinton campaign invented Russia-gate

Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign invented Russia-gate - in 2015.

 

The campaign had conducted polling on likely Democrat voters. Their analysis showed that Hillary Clinton's biggest weakness was the fact that she and her husband took over a hundred million dollars from Russians for her signing off on the deal that gave Russia twenty percent of America's uranium when she was Secretary of State.

 

John Podesta (the genuis whose email password was "password") decided to use the tactic known to every child: projection. The campaign decided to accuse Donald Trump of being complicit with President Putin in order to deflect from Clinton's sleazy corruption.

 

Whilst the tactic did not work in the sense of securing Hillary the White House, it has grown into one of the biggest campaigns in the history of lying propaganda. The Clinton campaign managed to co-opt the deep state, the corporate media (and just in case you haven't noticed even Fox News' coverage of Trump's presidency is in the main negative), the establishment leadership of the Republican Party, the leadership of the multinational corporations and substantial elements of the judiciary.

 

Whilst this sustained disinformation failed to win Hillary Clinton the election, it has hamstrung the incumbent. Trump has been unable to staff the executive with enthusiastic supporters of the policies that won him the election. He has been unable to implement his foreign policy positions, especially with regard to creating co-operative relations with Russia and focusing on the defeat of the jihadists. He has been unable to push his legislative agenda in Congress. Even the courts have attempted to block his use of his clear Constitutional and statutory authority.

 

Today, Congress is set to pass a bill that would hamstring Trump's executive authority even further by preventing him from easing sanctions on Russia, and indeed it aims at increasing sanctions on Russia, along with Iran and North Korea. According to Congress, the rationale for further sanctions on Russia is its role in fighting the jihadists in Syria, which, in an Orwellian twist, is described as destablising, even though it was the support given to the jihadists by the US and its allies that destabilised Syria. Another rationale offered is the Ukraine coup of 2014, which again was the work of the US in supporting to the Stepan Bandera idolising neo-Nazis which brought about the overthrow of the democratically elected government. Victoria Nuland, a Clinton appointee, even boasted of the five billion dollars the US spent on the coup. The Congressional rationale for sanctions of Iran and North Korea are equally Orwellian: a sure sign of dishonesty. These moves are merely intended as counters to the president's authority and freedom of executive action.

 

There is in fact a coup d'etat in progress. John Brennan at a Security Forum in Aspen has called for state officials to refuse to obey presidential orders, specifically should President Trump seek to remove Special Counsel Mueller, who was appointed as a result of former FBI Director James Comey's leaking of government information to the media. Mueller, a friend and colleague of Comey, has staffed his investigative team with pro-Democrats. He has picked up the witch hunt template, the Steele Dossier, which the Clinton campaign paid over a million dollars for, and which Comey and Adam Schiff and others have used to smear Donald Trump.

 

All the while, day in and day out, the corporate media run supposed news stories on Russia-gate. The stories are fuelled by selective leaking from anonymous officials and former officials. The stories are construed in the most negative and scandalous light possible. When the stories are shown to be false, they are dropped, only to be subsequently repeated as though they had never been debunked.

 

The US has a long and consistent history of such anti-democratic campaigns. It has conducted such coups and election meddling in countries across the globe: from Chile to Russia, from Guatemala to Italy. The election of Donald Trump was for the neoliberal elite the wrong result. It is an outcome they are not prepared to accept. They are using all the practised abroad techniques of regime change to destroy Trump's presidency, and Russia-gate is central to the campaign. Apparently, Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity have noticed this too. They have sent President Trump a memorandum, explaining in detail that the claim that Russia hacked the election is false. The veterans are understated, but the unavoidable implication of the memo is that there is coup d'etat under way.

To leave a comment, please sign in with
or or

Comments (43)

  1. mrmacq

    Russian to Judgment

    Allegations of a “quid pro quo” deal giving Russia ownership of one-fifth of U.S. uranium deposits in exchange for $145 million in donations to the Clinton Foundation are unsubstantiated.
    .
    CLAIM
    Sec. of State Hillary Clinton’s approval of a deal to transfer control of 20% of U.S. uranium deposits to a Russian company was a quid pro quo exchange for donations to the Clinton Foundation. See Example(s)

    RATING
    FALSE

    ORIGIN
    In the months leading up to the 2016 United States presidential election, stories abounded about the relationships between the Clinton Foundation and various foreign entities.
    .
    May 2015 saw the publication of a book called Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich, an exposé of alleged Clinton Foundation corruption written by Peter Schweizer, a former Hoover Institution fellow and editor-at-large at the right-wing media company Breitbart.
    .
    A chapter in the book suggests that the Clinton family and Russia each may have benefited from a “pay-for-play” scheme while Hillary Clinton was secretary of state, involving the transfer of U.S. uranium reserves to the new Russian owners of an international mining operation in exchange for $145 million in donations to the Clinton Foundation.
    .
    The mining company, Uranium One, was originally based in South Africa, but merged in 2007 with Canada-based UrAsia Energy. Shareholders there retained a controlling interest until 2010, when Russia’s nuclear agency, Rosatom, completed purchase of a 51% stake. Hillary Clinton played a part in the transaction because it involved the transfer of ownership of a material deemed important to national security — uranium, amounting to one-fifth of U.S. reserves — thus requiring the approval of the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS), on which the U.S. Secretary of State sits.
    .
    During the same time frame that the acquisition took place, Schweizer claims in Clinton Cash, the Clinton Foundation accepted contributions from nine individuals associated with Uranium One totaling more than $100 million. Among those who followed him in citing the transaction as an example of alleged Clinton corruption was GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump, who said during a June 2016 speech in New York City:
    .
    Hillary Clinton’s State Department approved the transfer of 20% of America’s uranium holdings to Russia, while nine investors in the deal funneled $145 million to the Clinton Foundation.
    Trump’s campaign repeated the allegation in a September 2016 press release, and again in an October 2016 television ad stating that Clinton “gave American uranium rights to the Russians”:
    .
    An image circulating via social media during the final months of the presidential campaign asked the question, “So Hillary, if Russia is such a threat, why did you sell them 20% of our uranium? Are you a liar, or a traitor, or both?”
    .
    The Uranium One deal was not Clinton’s to veto or approve
    .
    Among the ways these accusations stray from the facts is in attributing a power of veto or approval to Secretary Clinton that she simply did not have. Clinton was one of nine cabinet members and department heads that sit on the CFIUS, and the secretary of the treasury is its chairperson. CFIUS members are collectively charged with evaluating the transaction for potential national security issues, then turning their findings over to the president. By law, the committee can’t veto a transaction; only the president can. According to The New York Times, Clinton may not have even directly participated in the Uranium One decision. Then-Assistant Secretary of State Jose Fernandez, whose job it was to represent the State Dept. on CFIUS, said Clinton herself “never intervened” in committee matters.
    .
    Despite transfer of ownership, the uranium remained in the U.S.
    .
    A key fact ignored in criticisms of Clinton’s supposed involvement in the deal is that the uranium was not — nor could it be — exported, and remained under the control of U.S.-based subsidiaries of Uranium One, according to a statement by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission:
    .
    NRC’s review of the transfer of control request determined that the U.S. subsidiaries will
    remain the licensees, will remain qualified to conduct the uranium recovery operations, and will continue to have the equipment, facilities, and procedures necessary to protect public health and safety and to minimize danger to life or property. The review also determined that the licensees will maintain adequate financial surety for eventual decommissioning of the sites. Neither Uranium One nor ARMZ holds an NRC export license, so no uranium produced at either facility may be exported.
    The timing of most of the donations does not match
    .
    Of the $145 million allegedly contributed to the Clinton Foundation by Uranium One investors, the lion’s share — $131.3 million — came from a single donor, Frank Giustra, the company’s founder. But Giustra sold off his entire stake in the company in 2007, three years before the Russia deal and at least 18 months before Clinton became secretary of state.
    .
    Of the remaining individuals connected with Uranium One who donated to the Clinton Foundation, only one was found to have contributed during the same time frame that the deal was taking place, according to The New York Times — Ian Telfer, the company’s chairman:
    .
    His donations through the Fernwood Foundation included $1 million reported in 2009, the year his company appealed to the American Embassy to help it keep its mines in Kazakhstan; $250,000 in 2010, the year the Russians sought majority control; as well as $600,000 in 2011 and $500,000 in 2012. Mr. Telfer said that his donations had nothing to do with his business dealings, and that he had never discussed Uranium One with Mr. or Mrs. Clinton. He said he had given the money because he wanted to support Mr. Giustra’s charitable endeavors with Mr. Clinton. “Frank and I have been friends and business partners for almost 20 years,” he said.
    The timing of Telfer’s donations might be questionable if there was reason to believe that Hillary Clinton was instrumental in the approval of the deal with Russia, but all the evidence points to the contrary — that Clinton did not play a pivotal role, and, in fact, may not have played any role at all.
    .
    Foundation admits disclosure mistakes
    .
    One fault investigations into the Clinton Foundation’s practices did find was that not all of the donations were properly disclosed — specifically, those of Uranium One Chairman Ian Telfer between 2009 and 2012. The foundation admitted this shortcoming and pledged to correct it, but as the Guardian pointed out in its May 2015 discussion of Clinton Cash, the fact that it happened is reason enough to sound alarm bells:
    .
    It is also true that large donations to the foundation from the chairman of Uranium One, Ian Telfer, at around the time of the Russian purchase of the company and while Hillary Clinton was secretary of state, were never disclosed to the public. The multimillion sums were channeled through a subsidiary of the Clinton Foundation, CGSCI, which did not reveal its individual donors.
    .
    Such awkward collisions between Bill’s fundraising activities and Hillary’s public service have raised concerns not just among those who might be dismissed as part of a vast right-wing conspiracy.
    An enormous volume of interest and speculation surrounds the workings of the Clinton Foundation, which is to be expected. Given the enormous sums of money it controls and the fact that it is run by a former U.S. president who is married to a possible future U.S. president, the foundation deserves all the scrutiny it gets, and more.
    .
    At the same time, for the sake of accuracy it’s crucial to differentiate between partisan accusations and what we actually know about it — however little that may be.

    .
    Got a tip or a rumor? Contact us here.

    ever thought about writing for national enquirer?

    July 25, 2017
    1. stevehayes13

      This is (a) partisan “fact checking” and (b) irrelevant as the point is that the Democrat analysis showed that this information was Hillary’s greatest weakness and it was that analysis that provided the motivation to invent Russia-gate.

      July 26, 2017
      1. mrmacq

        always an excuse
        “its fake news”

        July 26, 2017
        1. stevehayes13

          Is this supposed to make sense?

          July 26, 2017
          1. mrmacq

            of course it made sense
            “This is (a) partisan “fact checking”
            as soon as i run into a whopper, i stop reading
            cause ya just gotta know, more shits coming
            .
            the Snopes.com web site is (and always has been) a completely independent, self-sufficient entity wholly owned by its operators and funded through advertising revenues. Neither the site nor its operators has ever received monies from (or been engaged in any business or editorial relationship with), any sponsor, political party, religious group, outside business organization, or government agency that is not disclosed here.

            Snopes.com strives to be as transparent as possible"

            but hey…if it casts a shadow over what youre attempting to have all others believe
            simply claim its “partisan”…or “fake news”
            that will shut them up

            July 26, 2017
            1. stevehayes13

              Snopes is a partisan so called fact checker. However, it is completely beside the point. The Clinton campaign decided to invent Russia-gate to deflect from what they saw as Hillary Clinton’s major weakness with Democrat voters, ie, her corruption, specifically on the Russian deal.

              July 26, 2017
          2. mrmacq

            no, its not partisan
            and
            no, its not beside the point
            .
            if youre attempting to have me convinced of this little story of yours
            youre going to have to do better than simply repeating yourself “its partisan” its fake news"

            July 26, 2017
            1. stevehayes13

              It is partisan. Kim Lacapria is Snopes’ principal political so called fact checker.

              And it is beside the point for the obvious reason that the Clinton campaign identified it as their major weakness.

              July 26, 2017
            2. mrmacq

              what fucking ever, dude

              July 26, 2017
            3. mrmacq

              ah, fuck it
              regards kim
              its long i warn you
              but im hopin youre not as feeble minded as most of the repulsives around here
              and dont mind a bit of reading
              .
              .
              Failed Daily Caller ‘Writer’ Throws Temper Tantrum, Exposed as Liar After Being Debunked by snopes.com
              Real reporters acknowledge and correct their mistakes, but some pretenders just throw hissy fits when they’re called out.
              .
              TL;DR version: One Daily Caller “writer,” tired of seeing his slanted and factually-challenged output debunked here at snopes.com (such as his misleading reporting about Washington state schools teaching transgenderism to kindergarten students and a DHS subcommittee report on violent extremism) attempted to shoot the messenger (a common logical fallacy). Instead of acknowledging and correcting his mistakes, he tried to deflect attention from them by attacking the person who had the temerity to point them out, our own Kim LaCapria.
              .
              Usually we don’t bother responding to such blather (our long-established reputation as the Internet’s oldest fact-checking site speaks for itself), but this instance provided an opportunity to deliver an informative object lesson on bad reporting (and the importance of fact-checking) too good to pass up.
              .
              In his rant, said writer (whom we’ll spare a bit of embarrassment by not referring to by name) exhibited all the same flaws that have plagued his usual “reporting” — misrepresenting source material, eliding or ignoring relevant information, selective quoting, cherry-picking, lack of context — right from the very outset:
              .
              “:Snopes’ main political fact-checker is a writer named Kim Lacapria. Before writing for Snopes, Lacapria wrote for Inquisitr, a blog that — oddly enough — is known for publishing fake quotes and even downright hoaxes as much as anything else.”
              .
              The Inquisitr is actually a news and media website, not a blog. And while it may be true that some Inquisitr contributors have occasionally fallen for fake news stories and other hoaxes (of which we’ve debunked our fair share), what does that have to do with our Ms. LaCapria? Did our Daily Caller writer point out a single instance of Kim’s publishing “fake quotes” or “downright hoaxes” as real news while working for the Inquisitr? Or any instance of her claiming as fact something that wasn’t true in any of her Inquisitr writing? Answer: no.
              .
              He then moved on from this weak attempt at invoking the association fallacy to setting up a straw man fallacy:
              .
              “While at Inquisitr, the future “fact-checker” consistently displayed clear partisanship … She once wrote: “Like many GOP ideas about the poor, the panic about using food stamps for alcohol, pornography or guns seems to have been cut from whole cloth — or more likely, the ideas many have about the fantasy of poverty.” (A simple fact-check would show that food stamp fraud does occur and costs taxpayers tens of millions.)”
              .
              A simple reading of the linked article would have shown that Ms. LaCapria wasn’t addressing welfare fraud, but rather legislative efforts to further restrict the kinds of things welfare recipients could spend their benefits on, based on common claims that such benefits were being used to purchase items such as pornography, alcohol, guns, tattoos, and nail salon services — despite scant evidence that this was much of a real-world problem.
              .
              The Daily Caller writer’s approach here was to “fact-check” something that hadn’t been stated in the first place, pointing to an article describing the arrest and indictment of several persons in Delaware accused of falsifying records in order to illegally obtain EBT cards to which they were not entitled as proof that welfare fraud is real — something that had nothing to do with the subject of Kim’s article, which was about how legitimate welfare recipients choose to use their benefits.
              .
              Next up, the invocation of yet another fallacy equating quality with popularity:
              .
              “Her columns apparently failed to impress her readership, oftentimes failing to get more than 10-20 shares.”
              .
              Nobody hits a home run every time up, but if the number of social media shares is your metric of choice, Kim’s work (163,000+ shares for a single article) seems to be impressing our readership. Could that possibly be because she’s actually good at what she does?
              .
              hillarycase
              .
              This was followed closely by the fallacy of confusing fact with opinion:
              .
              “She wrote a “fact check” article about Jimmy Carter’s unilateral ban of Iranian nationals from entering the country that looks more like an opinion column arguing against Donald Trump’s proposed Muslim ban.”
              .
              Stating that “this article looks more like an opinion column than a fact check” is itself an opinion (not a fact) and does not document a single factual inaccuracy in the referenced article (which is a standard compare-and-contrast piece that doesn’t argue for or against anything or anyone).
              .
              The Daily Caller writer then proceeded to dip once again into his bag of logical fallacies, this time pulling out ipse dixit (i.e., “it’s true because I say it is”):
              .
              “Similarly, Lacapria — in another “fact check” article — argued Hillary Clinton hadn’t included Benghazi at all in her infamous “we didn’t lose a single person in Libya” gaffe. Lacapria claimed Clinton only meant to refer to the 2011 invasion of Libya (but not the 2012 Benghazi attack) but offered little fact-based evidence to support her claim.”
              .
              It may be a foreign concept to this Daily Caller writer (who commonly relies on selective quoting and lack of context to slant his reporting), but presenting a video clip documenting what a person actually said, completely and in its full context, is indeed “fact-based evidence.”
              .
              It was quite clear in context that Hillary Clinton was speaking of a multinational military intervention in Libya that took place well before the attack on the American diplomatic compound in Benghazi. But as John Pettus succinctly noted, if the Daily Caller writer doesn’t find fact-based evidence sufficient, he could also try the application of some simple common sense:
              .
              Of course that’s what [Clinton] meant. What is the alternative? That she forgot about the Americans who died at the consulate? Or that she thought nobody would notice if she lied about it? Neither of those is remotely plausible. She was talking about the attack [on Libya].
              .
              Then Daily Caller then delved into the fallacy of making mistaken assumptions about a person’s motives and actions:
              .
              “After the Orlando terror attack, Lacapria claimed that just because Omar Mateen was a registered Democrat with an active voter registration status didn’t mean he was actually a Democrat. Her “fact check” argued that he might “have chosen a random political affiliation when he initially registered.”
              .
              In fact, Kim LaCapria didn’t write any such thing — I did.
              .
              Although Kim penned the initial draft of our article about Omar Mateen’s voter registration and wanted to list it as “TRUE,” I made the editorial decision to overrule her because (as I explicated at length in the article) “registered as a Democrat” and “was a Democrat” are not manifestly the same thing — voter registration and political ideology don’t necessarily go hand in hand (as evidenced by the fact that the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, Donald Trump, has changed his party of registration multiple times), and I felt it would be misleading to imply that they did by only addressing one part of that equation.
              .
              Avoiding this kind of error is one of the reasons why good reporters actually make attempts to contact the people they’re writing about (which didn’t happen here).
              .
              The Daily Caller writer circled back to familiar ground, once again treading the ipse dixit line:
              .
              “Lacapria even tried to contradict the former Facebook workers who admitted that Facebook regularly censors conservative news, dismissing the news as “rumors.””
              .
              In fact, “former Facebook workers” didn’t admit “that Facebook regularly censors conservative news.” Rather, a single self-declared conservative former Facebook curator claimed that other Facebook curators were not putting as much conservative news as he would liked to have seen into Facebook’s training algorithm for their Trending Topics section.
              .
              But you don’t have to take our word for it. You know who else dismissed the claim that “Facebook regularly censors conservative news” as “rumors”? How about Glenn Beck — you know, that immensely popular conservative political commentator — who was involved in the issue first-hand and wrote a scathing indictment of the accusations leveled against Facebook (that read in part):

              “I accept the possibility there may be evidence that Facebook — or said more clearly, someone or even multiple people who work for Facebook — may have done something that skewed the output in some way to game the system. But so far, I have not seen that evidence. And we looked for it. There are people at my company who understand this stuff far better than I do and they haven’t seen that evidence.
              .
              As a reminder, this entire controversy began when one former member of the Trending team — one — claimed Faceboook was suppressing conservative voices.
              .
              [T]he reason I went to Facebook was not to find out whether there was a small issue, but to see whether there was a real issue. A top-down initiative from management to marginalize conservative voices. We can, and will, debate the merits of some of the complaints against Facebook, but, in my opinion, there is no evidence of a top-down initiative to silence conservative voices.
              .
              In a country that is deeply divided, the largest and most important company in human interaction and content consumption saw the conservative movement in an uproar over ONE person, making ONE accusation, against ONE of their products. One story and the pitchforks came out. Now that’s something we conservatives are accustomed to, but not so much for those on the left.
              .
              I sat through a meeting that, to me, felt like I was attending a Rainbow Coalition meeting, that people (not me) had come with a list of demands. I looked around the room, I heard the complaints, I listened to the perspectives, and not a single person in the room shared evidence of any wrongdoing. Maybe they had some, but it wasn’t shared. They discussed how Facebook’s organic reach and changes in algorithms has impacted their business. While at the same time admitting that Huffington Post has been struggling with the same issues. I heard people discuss community standards, pages being shut down, posts being removed — and I do believe that happens and it’s something Facebook could do better, and I hope they will — but we were not there because of that. We were there because of this ONE accusation on Trending Topics.
              .
              I sat there looking around and heard things like:
              .
              1) Facebook has a very liberal workforce. Has Facebook considered diversity in their hiring practice? The country is 2% Mormon. Maybe Facebook’s company should better reflect that reality.
              2) Maybe Facebook should consider a six-month training program to help their biased and liberal workforce understand and respect conservative opinions and values.
              3) We need to see strong and specific steps to right this wrong.
              .
              It was like affirmative action for conservatives. When did conservatives start demanding quotas AND diversity training AND less people from Ivy League Colleges.
              .
              I sat there, looking around the room at ‘our side’ wondering, ‘Who are we?’ Who am I? I want to be very clear — I am not referring to every person in the room. There were probably 25-30 people and a number of them, I believe, felt like I did. But the overall tenor, to me, felt like the Salem Witch Trial: ‘Facebook, you must admit that you are screwing us, because if not, it proves you are screwing us.’

              Finally, the Daily Caller writer introduced both the contextomy fallacy and provided a textbook example of confirmation bias fallacy in declaring:
              .
              “Lacapria again played defense for Clinton in a fact check article when she claimed: “Outrage over an expensive Armani jacket worn by Hillary Clinton was peppered with inaccurate details.
              One of the “inaccurate details” cited by Lacapria was that, “The cost of men’s suits worn by fellow politicians didn’t appear in the article for contrast.” She also argued the speech Clinton gave while wearing the $12,495 jacket, which discussed “raising wages and reducing inequality,” wasn’t actually about income inequality.”
              .
              The confirmation bias here is characterizing Kim LaCapria’s debunking rumors about Hillary Clinton as “play[ing] defense for Clinton,” while making absolutely no mention of, or suggestion of bias in, her “playing defense for Trump” in debunking negative rumors about the Republican candidate (as she did here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here … well, you get the drift).
              .
              Kim’s noting in a discussion of the infamous Hillary Clinton $12,000 Armani jacket brouhaha that male politicians are rarely criticized over how much they spend on clothing was offered as an observation of the double standard fallacy, not as an “inaccurate detail.” The primary inaccurate detail was the erroneous reporting by multiple sources that Ms. Clinton hypocritically wore a very expensive jacket while giving a speech on “[income] inequality”:
              .
              Hillary_Clinton_Wore_A__12_000_Armani_Jacket_During_A_Speech_About_Inequality
              .
              Yet the Daily Caller writer astoundingly maintained, in the face of undeniable evidence to the contrary, that the Hillary Clinton speech in question was indeed about “raising wages and reducing inequality,” even though a full transcript of Hillary Clinton’s New York primary victory speech (linked from our article) shows that assertion to be false.
              .
              During a speech in which Ms. Clinton touched on a panoply of progressive topics and talking points — parents finding good jobs, grandparents enjoying secure retirements, children not fearing deportation or discrimination, honoring hard work, supporting families, strengthening communities, trusting and respecting people despite their differences, creating more good jobs, raising wages, ensuring good educations for children, revitalizing inner cities, rebuilding infrastructure, combating climate change, challenging systemic racism, passing comprehensive immigration reform, guaranteeing equal pay for women, defending the rights of various groups (voters, workers, women, LGBT, the disabled), reforming the criminal justice system, and gun safety reform — she made but one reference to “reducing inequality”:
              .
              “And in this campaign, we are setting bold progressive goals backed up by real plans that will improve lives, creating more good jobs that provide dignity and pride in a middle class life, raising wages and reducing inequality, making sure all our kids get a good education no matter what zip code they live in, building ladders of opportunity and empowerment so all of our people can go as far as their hard work and talent will take them.”
              .
              That’s right: Hillary Clinton’s making a single reference to “reducing inequality” in a speech whose transcript spanned fourteen paragraphs was characterized by a Daily Caller writer as comprising a discussion of “raising wages and reducing inequality.” It’s difficult to conceive how one could slant a topic any further without violating some law of physics.
              .
              Does Kim LaCapria have personal political opinions and viewpoints? Of course she does, as does every other journalist, fact-checker, writer, and just about every other living human being. But having opinions doesn’t preclude one from fairly analyzing and presenting facts, as John Pettus observed:
              .
              “I (and I think many people) believe journos are people, and have opinions. But their job (at least on the news side) is to write about the facts, as they research and discover them. Does having opinions — even strong opinions — mean that one cannot have the job of studiously researching the facts around a particular issue? Unless the author can demonstrate with evidence a pattern of this writer either putting out false information, or egregiously omitting easily obtainable opposing information, they have not made the case that this Snopes writer is not doing her job.”
              .
              I realize this is quite possibly a novel idea to the Daily Caller writer, but here at snopes.com we employ fact-checkers and editors who review and amend (as necessary) everything we publish to ensure its fairness and accuracy rather than just allowing our writers to pass off biased, opinionated, slanted, skewed, and unethically partisan work as genuine news reporting.
              .
              Perhaps some Daily Caller writers could give that approach a try sometime.

              so because snopes calls out the lies (and not just of the right) you want to pretend that they are partisan
              they dont agree with you all the way, so they must be partisan
              .
              have you ever considered not lying?

              July 26, 2017
            4. stevehayes13

              Let me see. I say Snopes is partisan and you quote Snopes saying they are not partisan and on that basis you call me a liar.

              July 26, 2017
            5. mrmacq

              and just what basis are you going on troll?
              “you just need to believe me”

              July 26, 2017
            6. stevehayes13

              No, I am working on the basis of evidence and reason. Your only expressed disagreement is completely beside the point, as I made plain in the OP and have explained repeatedly. Let me see if I can make this clear to you. Assume (just for the sake of argument) that Snopes’ fact check is correct. The result is it makes absolutely no difference because the Clinton campaign knew that the information was Clinton’s major weakness with Democrat voters and they decided, not to go down the route of trying to debunk it, but to attack Trump on the basis of suggesting he was too close to Putin. Thus, even if we assume Snopes’ fact check is correct, it makes no difference. You are therefore either (a) incredibly obtuse or (b) just trolling.

              July 27, 2017
            7. mrmacq

              its not fucking beside the point
              you installed it in your rambling
              and as i made mention (which you obviously didnt read)
              “as soon as i run into a whopper, i stop reading
              cause ya just gotta know, more shits coming”
              …how are you to get recruits dude
              if the first thing they read is a lie pretending to be fact?
              “the fact that she and her husband took over a hundred million dollars from Russians for her signing off on the deal that gave Russia twenty percent of America’s uranium "
              …an outright lie
              .
              Among the ways these accusations stray from the facts is in attributing a power of veto or approval to Secretary Clinton that she simply did not have. Clinton was one of nine cabinet members and department heads that sit on the CFIUS, and the secretary of the treasury is its chairperson. CFIUS members are collectively charged with evaluating the transaction for potential national security issues, then turning their findings over to the president. By law, the committee can’t veto a transaction; only the president can. According to The New York Times, Clinton may not have even directly participated in the Uranium One decision. Then-Assistant Secretary of State Jose Fernandez, whose job it was to represent the State Dept. on CFIUS, said Clinton herself “never intervened” in committee matters.

              July 27, 2017
  2. EZWAYZ

    A coup only works if the sheeple sleep

    July 25, 2017
    1. stevehayes13

      Coups d’etat have worked even when the people have been awake. Coups are conducted by minorities to overthrow democratically elected governments.

      July 26, 2017
      1. EZWAYZ

        True, but the chance of failure increases with wakefulness

        July 26, 2017
  3. wirelessguru1

    Fascinating to see a fool debating a demon! LOL!!!

    July 26, 2017
    1. croker

      WG1 – what is more fascinating is reading the comments of a natural fool.

      July 26, 2017
      1. wirelessguru1

        So fool, you must really like to read your own comments then?! LMO!!!

        July 26, 2017
        1. croker

          No I just read your comments and, of course, mrmacq (he’s another natural fool+1).

          July 26, 2017
          1. wirelessguru1

            Fool, you also sound stupid.

            July 26, 2017
  4. croker

    mrmacq: have you ever tried comprehending what has been written instead of emoting and adding comments which do not address the post.

    July 26, 2017
    1. wirelessguru1

      Fool, that Canadian demon is stupid just like you are.

      July 26, 2017
      1. croker

        Well, you and the Canadian demon are both halfwits or may be you both prefer being called dullards.

        July 26, 2017
        1. wirelessguru1

          Fool, you are not even 1/4 wit! LMO!!!
          WAKE UP!!!

          July 26, 2017
    2. mrmacq

      have you ever thought of not being a fucking bitch?
      why is it you offer zip to any conversation?
      why is it that you simply troll?

      July 26, 2017
      1. croker

        Have you ever thought of addressing a post rather than going off at a tangent?

        July 27, 2017
        1. wirelessguru1

          Fool, you are always going off at a tangent!
          WAKE UP!!!

          July 27, 2017
          1. croker

            WG1 – Keep those compliments coming.

            July 27, 2017
  5. croker

    WG1 – is that the best you can do – playground projection.

    July 26, 2017
    1. wirelessguru1

      Fool, what “playground projection”!?
      You are obviously stupid.

      July 26, 2017
      1. croker

        If you don’t understand “playground projection” then the following must apply to you “lamebrain” “bungalow brain”

        July 26, 2017
        1. wirelessguru1

          See, no wonder you are stupid.

          July 26, 2017
          1. croker

            WG1 – I will take that as a compliment coming from you.

            July 27, 2017
            1. wirelessguru1

              Only a stupid fool would take that as a compliment!!!

              July 27, 2017
            2. croker

              WG1 – Another compliment better than the other, thank you.

              July 27, 2017
            3. wirelessguru1

              Only a stupid fool like you would consider reverse psychology in this situation!!!

              July 27, 2017
            4. croker

              WG1 – Keep those compliments coming.

              July 27, 2017
            5. wirelessguru1

              Only in your wet dreams and fertile imagination, of course…

              July 27, 2017
            6. croker

              WG1 – You just can’t stop the compliments can you.

              July 27, 2017
            7. wirelessguru1

              FU!!!

              July 27, 2017
            8. croker

              WG1 – Thank you.

              July 28, 2017