• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Shepard Smith Ignores Damning Facts in Uranium One Scandal

bubbabgone

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2013
Messages
36,921
Reaction score
17,904
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Uranium One is back in the news thanks to Shepard Smith, who laid out his version of events relating to Uranium One. From Smith’s monologue:
...
This monologue was swiftly and roundly circulated – being touted as a “demolishing” of the Uranium One Scandal.

There’s just one problem.

Shepard completely ignored some very relevant details.

https://www.themarketswork.com/2017...ignores-damning-facts-in-uranium-one-scandal/

So either Shep needs a new research team or he decided superficiality would more likely bring him the love he craved from those from whom it was pretty much guaranteed.
 
He kind of dissected the fake news, didn't he?

Desiccated more like it. All news is fake save Breitbart and such though RT is pretty good. I can't even watch Hannity anymore since he turned on the Good Judge Roy Moore.
 
Desiccated more like it. All news is fake save Breitbart and such though RT is pretty good. I can't even watch Hannity anymore since he turned on the Good Judge Roy Moore.

I would change that to - the only news worth knowing is published in the newspaper. I've never seen Breitbart, and I donno what RT is. Since Hannity is a commentator he's not worth watching. I do see that the claims against Moore are mounting - if he's blocked from the Senate it will quite a good day for the US.
 
https://www.themarketswork.com/2017...ignores-damning-facts-in-uranium-one-scandal/

So either Shep needs a new research team or he decided superficiality would more likely bring him the love he craved from those from whom it was pretty much guaranteed.

This "themarketswork" is not a news source; it's a one-man blog, and that one man, Jeff Carlson, is a ghost. Find a legitimate news source and I'll take a look. Meanwhile, I'll consider it from Russia with love.

Uranium One controversy explained | On Air Videos | Fox News
 
Last edited:
I would change that to - the only news worth knowing is published in the newspaper. I've never seen Breitbart, and I donno what RT is. Since Hannity is a commentator he's not worth watching. I do see that the claims against Moore are mounting - if he's blocked from the Senate it will quite a good day for the US.

Geez... I see from your profile you consider yourself 'slightly conservative', yet I'd just call it full RINO. You should change your viewing habits, both internet and otherwise. Only then can you join the alt-right, white-nationalist wave also known as winning!
 
https://www.themarketswork.com/2017...ignores-damning-facts-in-uranium-one-scandal/

So either Shep needs a new research team or he decided superficiality would more likely bring him the love he craved from those from whom it was pretty much guaranteed.

The FBI informant could blow the lid off this U1 issue...depends on Congress and what they do with his information when he talks to them. I'm sure it'll be a closed hearing and we'll only find out what the Congressional Elites want us to know.
 
https://www.themarketswork.com/2017...ignores-damning-facts-in-uranium-one-scandal/

So either Shep needs a new research team or he decided superficiality would more likely bring him the love he craved from those from whom it was pretty much guaranteed.

He actually impressed a LOT of Liberals with his highly selective account of Uranium one.

Their standards for jouranlistic integrity are lacking, of-course, but who did he think he was fooling ?
Does he really think his viewers are that stupid ?
 
He kind of dissected the fake news, didn't he?

He did no such thing. He presented a selective and partisan account that only Liberals would believe.
Everyone else saw through it
 
Desiccated more like it. All news is fake save Breitbart and such though RT is pretty good. I can't even watch Hannity anymore since he turned on the Good Judge Roy Moore.

Lol ! No, he didnt. Honestly, how stupid does he think people are ?
 
None of this undercuts any of Smith's account of the approval process itself, which excluded Hillary Clinton.

Good. That's something we can talk about. The approval process.
Yes, as SofS Hillary's office had to okay the U1 sale.
First, the claim is that Hillary didn't involve herself but rather an assistant SofS made the decision in her stead.
We don't even know if that's true but if you accept it then you're suggesting she's either incompetent, uninvolved, or establishing deniability about a serious decision like this one.
Jose Fernandez, the Assistant SofS , said “Secretary Clinton never intervened with me on any CFIUS matter.”
To me it's peculiar that a sitting SofS would disentangle herself from something like this but let's say it's true then we're still left with ...
Fernandez to Podesta - "John, It was good to talk to you this afternoon, and I appreciate your taking the time to call. As I mentioned, 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". - WIKILEAKS
and ...
"Hi John, I trust you are getting a brief rest after a job well done. Thanks no doubt to your recommendation I have joined the CAP [Center for American Progress] board of trustees, which I'm finding extremely rewarding." - WIKILEAKS

To continue ...
Yes, State was one of 9 Obama entities that had to approve.
If any one of them vetoed it then Obama would have to decide.
None vetoed it.
But what makes the CFIUS approval of the U1 deal peculiar is that as Senator and as SofS Hillary was a noted CFIUS hawk (e.g. on national security grounds) and worked as "an outspoken proponent of strengthening CFIUS" - the Hillary 2008 campaign.
"We've heard, from numerous administration spokespeople, that those of us who are raising concerns are somehow out of place, because, after all, it was a British
company that was engaged in these activities selling to the Dubai company. For many of us, there is a significant difference between a private company and a foreign government
entity." -
Sen. Hillary Clinton in 2006 in a hearing about the CFIUS approval for the UAE purchase of some US ports.

As SofS she continued that policy ... until U1.
So what we're then left to conclude is that Hillary either has no core values, has politically elastic values, or has values that money can buy.

So if I knew all that then Shep could have known that. The question is why didn't he know, or why did he know and not bother to mention it.
 
The FBI informant could blow the lid off this U1 issue...depends on Congress and what they do with his information when he talks to them. I'm sure it'll be a closed hearing and we'll only find out what the Congressional Elites want us to know.

You'd think but ......
 
He actually impressed a LOT of Liberals with his highly selective account of Uranium one.

...

He did that, all right.
Now there's a "Even Fox News has said there's no there there." that can be repeated and, ironically, it's just as superficial as what Shep delivered.
 
Good. That's something we can talk about. The approval process.
Yes, as SofS Hillary's office had to okay the U1 sale.
First, the claim is that Hillary didn't involve herself but rather an assistant SofS made the decision in her stead.
We don't even know if that's true but if you accept it then you're suggesting she's either incompetent, uninvolved, or establishing deniability about a serious decision like this one.
Jose Fernandez, the Assistant SofS , said “Secretary Clinton never intervened with me on any CFIUS matter.”
To me it's peculiar that a sitting SofS would disentangle herself from something like this but let's say it's true then we're still left with ...
Fernandez to Podesta - "John, It was good to talk to you this afternoon, and I appreciate your taking the time to call. As I mentioned, 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". - WIKILEAKS
and ...
"Hi John, I trust you are getting a brief rest after a job well done. Thanks no doubt to your recommendation I have joined the CAP [Center for American Progress] board of trustees, which I'm finding extremely rewarding." - WIKILEAKS

To continue ...
Yes, State was one of 9 Obama entities that had to approve.
If any one of them vetoed it then Obama would have to decide.
None vetoed it.
But what makes the CFIUS approval of the U1 deal peculiar is that as Senator and as SofS Hillary was a noted CFIUS hawk (e.g. on national security grounds) and worked as "an outspoken proponent of strengthening CFIUS" - the Hillary 2008 campaign.
"We've heard, from numerous administration spokespeople, that those of us who are raising concerns are somehow out of place, because, after all, it was a British
company that was engaged in these activities selling to the Dubai company. For many of us, there is a significant difference between a private company and a foreign government
entity." -
Sen. Hillary Clinton in 2006 in a hearing about the CFIUS approval for the UAE purchase of some US ports.

As SofS she continued that policy ... until U1.
So what we're then left to conclude is that Hillary either has no core values, has politically elastic values, or has values that money can buy.

So if I knew all that then Shep could have known that. The question is why didn't he know, or why did he know and not bother to mention it.

You're only left to conclude that if you close your eyes to other, less partisan inspired, alternatives, including this one:

"As PolitiFact has laid out in great detail, there is no direct evidence of a quid pro quo among Clinton, the State Department, Rosatom and the Clinton Foundation donors with ties to Uranium One. Clinton has repeatedly denied any involvement in the State Department’s approval of the Uranium One sale, insisting that such approval was granted at lower levels of the department and would not have crossed the secretary’s desk.

Jose Fernandez, who was the assistant secretary of state for economic, energy and business affairs when the Uranium One deal was approved, told the Times that Clinton “never intervened with me on any [Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States] matter."

Beyond the State Department, eight other government agencies approved the Uranium One sale."

And even if she was counseled on the deal she may not have thought vetoing the unanimous decision of the other eight agencies was something she should do. In any case, if this episode from seven years ago is the best thing you guys have to turn the tables away from Trump and onto Hillary, you are reaching beyond your grasp.
 
You're only left to conclude that if you close your eyes to other, less partisan inspired, alternatives, including this one:

"As PolitiFact has laid out in great detail, there is no direct evidence of a quid pro quo among Clinton, the State Department, Rosatom and the Clinton Foundation donors with ties to Uranium One. Clinton has repeatedly denied any involvement in the State Department’s approval of the Uranium One sale, insisting that such approval was granted at lower levels of the department and would not have crossed the secretary’s desk.

Jose Fernandez, who was the assistant secretary of state for economic, energy and business affairs when the Uranium One deal was approved, told the Times that Clinton “never intervened with me on any [Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States] matter."

Beyond the State Department, eight other government agencies approved the Uranium One sale."

And even if she was counseled on the deal she may not have thought vetoing the unanimous decision of the other eight agencies was something she should do. In any case, if this episode from seven years ago is the best thing you guys have to turn the tables away from Trump and onto Hillary, you are reaching beyond your grasp.

What you posted consists of nothing more than a denial by Hillary that then was used by PolitiFact as corroboration of her story.
What the OP link showed and what I posted included what Politifact said but added much more to give a more complete picture.
But a person has to leave confirmation biases aside to accept it.
All you did was repeat the very same claims that I noted had been made but you didn't address the information that counters it.
Can you?
 
What you posted consists of nothing more than a denial by Hillary that then was used by PolitiFact as corroboration of her story.
What the OP link showed and what I posted included what Politifact said but added much more to give a more complete picture.
But a person has to leave confirmation biases aside to accept it.
All you did was repeat the very same claims that I noted had been made but you didn't address the information that counters it.
Can you?

None of your "information" counters it. Your information is that Hillary as a senator had been a proponent of CFIUS which, by itself, sheds no light on whether she was involved as Secretary of State, and if so how, in the uranium deal.
 
None of your "information" counters it. Your information is that Hillary as a senator had been a proponent of CFIUS which, by itself, sheds no light on whether she was involved as Secretary of State, and if so how, in the uranium deal.

The OP showed details that POLITIFACT didn't and my post did as well.
There's no reason for a fact checker to leave details like that out if they're truly interested in the truth.
And there's no reason for a reader to deny that the details matter if they're interested in the truth.
 
Desiccated more like it. All news is fake save Breitbart and such though RT is pretty good. I can't even watch Hannity anymore since he turned on the Good Judge Roy Moore.

Oh please. Anyone who says homosexuality should be illegal is not a 'good' anything.
 
https://www.themarketswork.com/2017...ignores-damning-facts-in-uranium-one-scandal/

So either Shep needs a new research team or he decided superficiality would more likely bring him the love he craved from those from whom it was pretty much guaranteed.

Hes always been a little emotional with a tendency to bloviate off topic. This is not uncommon these days. Many people like that kind of personal "news".

I do not appreciate the obscurement and time wasting aspects of that kind of delivery that is so prevalent in media.

Dragnet is my preference.
 
Desiccated more like it. All news is fake save Breitbart and such though RT is pretty good. I can't even watch Hannity anymore since he turned on the Good Judge Roy Moore.


Not to mention that Billy and Hillary are liberal royalty. Off with the heads with anyone that questions the dowery due for such a stunningly magnificent duo.

And hey, the Russian State owned RT news should replace all other news outlets in the US.
 
This "themarketswork" is not a news source; it's a one-man blog, and that one man, Jeff Carlson, is a ghost. Find a legitimate news source and I'll take a look. Meanwhile, I'll consider it from Russia with love.

Uranium One controversy explained | On Air Videos | Fox News

Ad hominem fallacy. Blame the source.
I knew most of it a couple of years ago. The information has been out there and should have been a part of Smith's presentation if he was serious about telling the story.
If you noticed, "debunking" by Smith really consists of nothing more than accepting "he says" and "Giustra says" and "unless special permission is granted".
It was that blind acceptance by Smith that was debunked by the link on this thread. Shepard Smith didn't do his job ... at least not a journalism job.

Here's the NYT from over 2 years ago.
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/...ssed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html?_r=0
MarketsWork just compiled it nicely, updated it with "recent articles by The Hill and Circa", and includes a bunch of chain-links to other sources.
 
Geez... I see from your profile you consider yourself 'slightly conservative', yet I'd just call it full RINO. You should change your viewing habits, both internet and otherwise. Only then can you join the alt-right, white-nationalist wave also known as winning!

Thank you (I guess) (g). But no, I probably won't change - at 86 changing is hard. I discovered, along about 1951, that listening to a speech didn't work for me - I needed it in print; and that's more germane now. So, I just ignore commentators as not useful for me.

Living in a closely-divided state, I feel rewarded by having John McCain as one of our senators.
 
Back
Top Bottom