IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags Clinton controversies , corruption charges , hillary clinton , Obama administration , Russia conspiracies

Reply
Old 18th October 2017, 11:22 AM   #1
The Big Dog
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 29,742
FBI knew of Russian Bribery before Clinton/Obama approved Uranium Deal / New Inve

Quote:
Before the Obama administration approved a controversial deal in 2010 giving Moscow control of a large swath of American uranium, the FBI had gathered substantial evidence that Russian nuclear industry officials were engaged in bribery, kickbacks, extortion and money laundering designed to grow Vladimir Putin’s atomic energy business inside the United States, according to government documents and interviews.
Further,

Quote:
They also obtained an eyewitness account — backed by documents — indicating Russian nuclear officials had routed millions of dollars to the U.S. designed to benefit former President Bill Clinton’s charitable foundation during the time Secretary of State Hillary Clinton served on a government body that provided a favorable decision to Moscow, sources told The Hill.
The Senate Judiciary Committee has begun a corruption probe investigating the Obama administration’s approval of the Uranium One deal

http://thehill.com/policy/national-s...administration
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th October 2017, 11:24 AM   #2
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In a post-fact world
Posts: 96,875
Nothingburger.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th October 2017, 11:31 AM   #3
BobTheCoward
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 22,789
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
Any comments about the linked articles?
Yes. A number of groups in the executive branch signed off on it. Why focus on the state dep only? We're they bribed to or did they think it was a good idea?
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th October 2017, 11:40 AM   #4
The Big Dog
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 29,742
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
Yes. A number of groups in the executive branch signed off on it. Why focus on the state dep only? We're they bribed to or did they think it was a good idea?
I am not sure what you mean, I specifically refer to Obama in the thread title.
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th October 2017, 12:00 PM   #5
Imhotep
Graduate Poster
 
Imhotep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: Midwest USA
Posts: 1,025
At the least, this seems to expose some hypocrisy on the left. It's not exactly the same as Russians influencing U.S. elections to be sure. But neither was the private email thing that came out that had liberals screaming hypocrisy, comparing the situation to the Hillary emails.

Also, Reddit has banned multiple users from r/news that tried to post the article. That's what got me interested.
Imhotep is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th October 2017, 12:04 PM   #6
Childlike Empress
Banned
 
Childlike Empress's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Ivory Tower
Posts: 20,632
Just a little reminder here as the morons write in the first paragraph about "Putin's atomic energy business": Putin wasn't president during the time in question, and he isn't Russia.

Now. Time to lock her up (I think the news here is mainly that the FBI knew - there was a lot known about these deals before).

Last edited by Childlike Empress; 18th October 2017 at 12:05 PM.
Childlike Empress is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th October 2017, 12:43 PM   #7
The Big Dog
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 29,742
Here is an interesting timeline that should help fill in some blanks:

Timeline: The Clintons, the Russians, and Uranium
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th October 2017, 01:03 PM   #8
fagin
Philosopher
 
fagin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: As far away from casebro as possible.
Posts: 7,070
And the article specifically refers to the administration at the time.
__________________
There is no secret ingredient - Kung Fu Panda
fagin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th October 2017, 01:08 PM   #9
BobTheCoward
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 22,789
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
I am not sure what you mean, I specifically refer to Obama in the thread title.
Obama and Clinton were not the only people in government that approved the deal. Why did all the other parties do to? It is more difficult to find fault with their actions if they were the same actions taken by others.
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th October 2017, 01:12 PM   #10
The Big Dog
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 29,742
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
Obama and Clinton were not the only people in government that approved the deal. Why did all the other parties do to? It is more difficult to find fault with their actions if they were the same actions taken by others.
Because, obviously, they were in charge and therefore were the ultimate decision makers.
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th October 2017, 01:18 PM   #11
BobTheCoward
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 22,789
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
Because, obviously, they were in charge and therefore were the ultimate decision makers.
And the discussion seems to be is it a bad decision or not. The fact a bunch of other people with knowledge and a stake thought it was not a bad idea is important in assessing the decision quality. One aspect of a decision does not dictate the whole story of the decision.
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th October 2017, 01:35 PM   #12
The Big Dog
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 29,742
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
And the discussion seems to be is it a bad decision or not. The fact a bunch of other people with knowledge and a stake thought it was not a bad idea is important in assessing the decision quality. One aspect of a decision does not dictate the whole story of the decision.
Have you had a chance to research anything on this? I mean, at all?

First you missed the Obama reference, now you are missing the "bribery" aspect.

And you are claiming that it is a "fact" that people "with knowledge" thought it was "not a bad idea" which appear to be something you just made up out of whole cloth.
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th October 2017, 01:43 PM   #13
BobTheCoward
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 22,789
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
Have you had a chance to research anything on this? I mean, at all?

First you missed the Obama reference, now you are missing the "bribery" aspect.

And you are claiming that it is a "fact" that people "with knowledge" thought it was "not a bad idea" which appear to be something you just made up out of whole cloth.
A) does not mean it was a bad decision. You don't just get to claim that as given. It isn't.

B) there was a committee of 9 agencies that did not object to the deal.
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th October 2017, 01:51 PM   #14
The Big Dog
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 29,742
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
A) does not mean it was a bad decision. You don't just get to claim that as given. It isn't.

B) there was a committee of 9 agencies that did not object to the deal.
Explain what the decision was, how it came about and how it wasn't a "bad decision" as you have claimed

Your second point is not only fallacious it also ignores the fact that Obama was in charge of those agencies.
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th October 2017, 01:57 PM   #15
BobTheCoward
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 22,789
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
Explain what the decision was, how it came about and how it wasn't a "bad decision" as you have claimed

Your second point is not only fallacious it also ignores the fact that Obama was in charge of those agencies.
A) I never claimed it wasnt a bad decision.

B) he was in charge. So? What evidence is there that their judgement was influenced?
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th October 2017, 02:07 PM   #16
Imhotep
Graduate Poster
 
Imhotep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: Midwest USA
Posts: 1,025
Did the FBI inform these agencies about the corruption? I haven't read through everything yet...
Imhotep is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th October 2017, 02:10 PM   #17
The Big Dog
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 29,742
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
A) does not mean it was a bad decision. You don't just get to claim that as given. It isn't.

B) there was a committee of 9 agencies that did not object to the deal.
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
A) I never claimed it wasnt a bad decision.
Yes you did.

Thanks for posting.
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th October 2017, 02:11 PM   #18
BobTheCoward
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 22,789
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
Yes you did.

Thanks for posting.
It isn't given.
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th October 2017, 02:33 PM   #19
applecorped
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 20,145
Those Russia investigations seem to be going very well
applecorped is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th October 2017, 03:19 PM   #20
rwguinn
Penultimate Amazing
 
rwguinn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 16 miles from 7 lakes
Posts: 11,098
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
Yes you did.

Thanks for posting.
Add "Reading the English Language" to the list of things you refuse to do.
"You cant take that as a given. It isn't" means that your assumption is not a slam-dunk.
__________________
"Political correctness is a doctrine,...,which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end."
"
I pointed out that his argument was wrong in every particular, but he rightfully took me to task for attacking only the weak points." Myriad http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=6853275#post6853275
rwguinn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th October 2017, 03:25 PM   #21
The Big Dog
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 29,742
Originally Posted by rwguinn View Post
Add "Reading the English Language" to the list of things you refuse to do.
"You cant take that as a given. It isn't" means that your assumption is not a slam-dunk.
Hey, thanks for checking in! Always special when someone checks into a thread with really helpful comments like:

"Add "Reading the English Language" to the list of things you refuse to do." say, that just SINGS! Can I borrow that?

By the way, and I hate to be a pesky sort, but you deliberately failed to, you know, quote the entire post that I read.

Here it is:

"A) does not mean it was a bad decision. You don't just get to claim that as given. It isn't."

I put the part you deliberately cut out right back in there. Now, some would say, rwguinn (and thanks for checking in!) that the sentence I read in actual English was about as clear as *********** mud.

But hat tip for checking in and managing to post literally nothing on the subject!

HAT TIP!

Last edited by The Big Dog; 18th October 2017 at 03:26 PM. Reason: Thanks for posting!
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th October 2017, 03:31 PM   #22
BobTheCoward
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 22,789
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
Hey, thanks for checking in! Always special when someone checks into a thread with really helpful comments like:

"Add "Reading the English Language" to the list of things you refuse to do." say, that just SINGS! Can I borrow that?

By the way, and I hate to be a pesky sort, but you deliberately failed to, you know, quote the entire post that I read.

Here it is:

"A) does not mean it was a bad decision. You don't just get to claim that as given. It isn't."

I put the part you deliberately cut out right back in there. Now, some would say, rwguinn (and thanks for checking in!) that the sentence I read in actual English was about as clear as *********** mud.

But hat tip for checking in and managing to post literally nothing on the subject!

HAT TIP!
"Does not mean it was a bad decision" is also not asserting that it wasn't a bad decision. It is three sentences in a row. the next sentence refers to the previous sentence.

Let's try a few explicit changes to demonstrate...

1.does not mean it was a bad decision. You don't just get to claim that as given. It isn't a given.

2.does not mean it was a bad decision. You don't just get to claim that as given. It isn't a bad decision.

I think it is quite clear number 1 sounds like a more coherent set of three statements than number 2.
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th October 2017, 05:15 PM   #23
Travis
Misanthrope of the Mountains
 
Travis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 24,133
Is there any evidence they did anything other than donate money to her charity? Because if that is all they did I say good for them; it was a good charity and I'm sure the money was used well.

Other than that I don't care.
__________________
"Because WE ARE IGNORANT OF 911 FACTS, WE DEMAND PROOF" -- Douglas Herman on Rense.com
Zingiber Officinale

Travis is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th October 2017, 07:33 AM   #24
The Big Dog
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 29,742
Senate seeks to interview FBI informant in Russian nuclear bribery case

Quote:
The Senate Judiciary Committee on Wednesday sought permission to interview an FBI informant who helped agents uncover a major corruption scheme by Russian nuclear officials seeking to aggressively expand their American business during the Obama administration.
Shockingly, the Obama Justice Department has tried to shut down this whistle blower through a non-disclosure agreement:

Quote:
As for the Russia company probe, The Hill reported overnight that Grassley is seeking permission to interview the FBI informant who helped agents uncover the corruption. His lawyer Victoria Toensing told The Hill that the informant was prevented from disclosing certain information to the courts and Congress after signing a nondisclosure statement and was threatened by Justice officials when he tried to reveal some information in a lawsuit last year.
All the details here:

http://thehill.com/policy/national-s...uclear-bribery
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th October 2017, 01:54 PM   #25
The Big Dog
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 29,742
A Russian nuclear firm under FBI investigation was allowed to purchase US uranium supply

Good article with some background documents that I am certain avid readers will find of interest.
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th October 2017, 02:11 PM   #26
Distracted1
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: No longer Philadelphia :(
Posts: 5,770
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
Further,



The Senate Judiciary Committee has begun a corruption probe investigating the Obama administration’s approval of the Uranium One deal

http://thehill.com/policy/national-s...administration
Clearly the Russians have been engaging in shady activities designed to harm the U.S. and profit from it for some time.
It is high time that the legitimacy of any government officials with ties to them, especially those in positions of great authority, be scrutinized.
I would even say that those with such ties be removed from office until it can be reasonably verified that they are not dupes, or puppets of, the Russians.
__________________
The man with one watch knows what time it is, the man with two watches is never sure.
Distracted1 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th October 2017, 11:21 AM   #27
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 96,386
When things aren't going well, start another Clinton investigation

There are so many to choose from. Just open that old Clinton Cash book and pick a dead horse to beat. And of course you can add on another Clinton email investigation while you are at it, Trumpers need to discredit Comey some more.

House GOP launches probes into Obama-era uranium deal, Clinton email inquiry
Quote:
Leading House Republicans announced on Tuesday two new probes, one into how the Obama administration’s Justice Department handled a deal that gave Russia control over 20 percent of the United States’ uranium supply, and the other into the how it investigated former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server.

The parallel investigations — both of which involve the House Oversight Committee working in cooperation with another panel — formally revive issues that the Trump campaign used to try to discredit his Democratic rival Clinton during the 2016 presidential race and later, the conduct of now-fired FBI Director James B. Comey.

The House Oversight and Judiciary Committees’ probe into the Clinton email investigation focuses on well-established lines of questioning, including why Comey decided to publicly announce it was investigating Clinton, but wait months before making a similar announcement about its inquiries into Trump.
For those of you that need a review, Clinton had little to nothing to do with the uranium decision and the uranium is still in the US. The Clinton Cash book has been thoroughly debunked. And we all know the email BS has been beat to death.

Two familiar GOP names are involved, Nunes and Peter King. Nunes would love to prove Putin supported Clinton:
Quote:
Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) said Tuesday that the panel has “been looking into this for a while now” but elected to formally start the inquiry in light of new evidence, reported in the Hill, that the FBI had been investigating Russian efforts to influence the American nuclear industry through various corrupt schemes.

Fake News:
Quote:
To hear Sean Hannity tell it, the media is ignoring “what is becoming the biggest scandal — or, at least, one of them — in American history.”

Hannity is jumping waaay ahead of the facts. So is Breitbart News, which has been running misleading headlines such as this: “FBI uncovers confirmation of Hillary Clinton's corrupt uranium deal with Russia.”

Brent Bozell, founder of the conservative Media Research Center, claims that there is “another coverup in the making.”

President Trump agrees.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th October 2017, 11:24 AM   #28
The Big Dog
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 29,742
House Opens Investigation into Obama Era scheme

The Oversight and Intelligence Committees’ investigation also resurrects allegations that Clinton or others in the Obama administration mishandled a government decision to green-light a deal giving Russia control over a sizable percentage of the country’s uranium resources.

Oversight committee member Ron DeSantis (R-Fla.) said Tuesday that members had identified a “witness who was a confidential informant who wants to talk about his role in this” but were trying to first get the witness released from a nondisclosure agreement with the Justice Department.

Seems like the President can say the word and get that Obama/Clinton era NDA tossed in the trash.

Do so now!
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th October 2017, 11:31 AM   #29
sir drinks-a-lot
Philosopher
 
sir drinks-a-lot's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Cole Valley, CA
Posts: 5,335
"At this point, what difference does it make?"
__________________
So, if he's doing it by divine means, I can only tell him this: 'Mr. Geller, you're doing it the hard way.' --James Randi
sir drinks-a-lot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th October 2017, 11:36 AM   #30
dasmiller
Just the right amount of cowbell
 
dasmiller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Well past Hither, looking for Yon
Posts: 6,710
Originally Posted by sir drinks-a-lot View Post
"At this point, what difference does it make?"
At some fundamental level, the message is "yes, Trump sucks, but the alternative would have been worse."

The more poorly Trump does, the more creative they'll get about ways to attack Hillary.
__________________
"In times of war, we need warriors. But this isn't a war." - Phil Plaitt
dasmiller is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th October 2017, 11:41 AM   #31
NoahFence
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 22,131
Seeing as though this is only fodder for morons and idiots, I didn't bother to look into the uranium thing.

Can someone give me a cliffs notes version of what I already suspect? She had little to do with it and whatever it is is actually a nothingburger.
NoahFence is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th October 2017, 11:45 AM   #32
NoahFence
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 22,131
Hawt Dawg!

As my old meteorologist (RIP) Dick Albert used to say about the weather...
MOTS

More of the Same.

Yawn.
NoahFence is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th October 2017, 11:46 AM   #33
NoahFence
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 22,131
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
Here is an interesting timeline that should help fill in some blanks:

Timeline: The Clintons, the Russians, and Uranium
Your link is to "Hotair.com"

/thread
NoahFence is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th October 2017, 11:51 AM   #34
The Big Dog
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 29,742
Originally Posted by NoahFence View Post
Your link is to "Hotair.com"

/thread
Your logical fallacy is ad hominem: attack the source, not the facts.

Just wave the white flag next time.
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th October 2017, 11:53 AM   #35
NoahFence
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 22,131
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
Your logical fallacy is ad hominem: attack the source, not the facts.

Just wave the white flag next time.
I find "body of work" to be a pretty solid foundation upon which to build an educated opinion.

The BOW of places like "hotair.com" are well known, and as such can be disregarded as baloney. I'll wait till I see a better source. You should too.
NoahFence is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th October 2017, 11:55 AM   #36
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 96,386
Originally Posted by Travis View Post
Is there any evidence they did anything other than donate money to her charity? Because if that is all they did I say good for them; it was a good charity and I'm sure the money was used well.

Other than that I don't care.
Guess my thread needs to be merged, I missed this one. Except this one belongs in the CT forum and mine still belongs in the USA Politics forum.

When things aren't going well, start another Clinton investigation

To answer your question, there was no pro quo, nada, none. Clinton had no influence on the uranium deal.

You think if there was any evidence she had, that wouldn't have been all over the news sooner than this?

Of course if you are delusional, you believe CNN and MSNBC are in on a big coverup of this news.

Last edited by Skeptic Ginger; 24th October 2017 at 11:59 AM.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th October 2017, 11:57 AM   #37
The Big Dog
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 29,742
Originally Posted by NoahFence View Post
I find "body of work" to be a pretty solid foundation upon which to build an educated opinion.

The BOW of places like "hotair.com" are well known, and as such can be disregarded as baloney. I'll wait till I see a better source. You should too.
No need to double down, you already mentioned in the other thread (which i expect will be merged here shortly) that you don't know anything about this scandal, although I see that is CERTAINLY not going to stop you from posting.
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th October 2017, 11:57 AM   #38
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 96,386
Originally Posted by NoahFence View Post
....

Can someone give me a cliffs notes version of what I already suspect? She had little to do with it and whatever it is is actually a nothingburger.
That's it in a nutshell, you don't need the Cliff Notes.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th October 2017, 12:26 PM   #39
phiwum
Penultimate Amazing
 
phiwum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 13,384
Originally Posted by Imhotep View Post
At the least, this seems to expose some hypocrisy on the left. It's not exactly the same as Russians influencing U.S. elections to be sure. But neither was the private email thing that came out that had liberals screaming hypocrisy, comparing the situation to the Hillary emails.

Also, Reddit has banned multiple users from r/news that tried to post the article. That's what got me interested.
I'm not sure about the email issues. On the one hand, Hillary destroyed allegedly unrelated emails around the time of a subpoena. On the other hand, I trust a well maintained private server more than I trust public servers.

We'll have to wait and see whether Kushner, et al, risked confidential materials.
phiwum is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th October 2017, 12:38 PM   #40
Meadmaker
Guest
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 29,033
Another investigation. Awesome.


Oh, well, they have to have something to do. All the good golf courses will be closing down for winter soon, at least for people who don't have a private public jet to head down to Florida.


In all seriousness, there have been so many investigations that they don't really raise my eyebrows anymore. When they issue their report, if there's anything in it other than, "We didn't find anything, but that's because they are hiding it." I'll pay more attention.
Meadmaker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:22 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.