• 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!

HUGE Blow to Uranium One Conspiracy Theory

vesper said:
And your proof is this witness is not credible are the Democrats on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee published in wait for it......... Mother freakin Jones!
:giggling:
:2funny:
:2rofll:
:lamo:
Click to expand...

Yet another example of "if a left-wing source says it, it MUST be false!" That's something I see y'all do time and time and time again - y'all never seem to bother with trying to actually verify whether the information is true or false. Y'all only look at who says it. If right-wing says it, it must be true, and if left-wing says it, it must be false.

BTW, time was that Republicans agreed with us about global warming...but after the Religious Right and the pundits forced y'all to believe that the Left is 100% wrong 100% of the time, well, whenever we say something that is true, y'all immediately take the other side even if it's wrong, 'cause liberals are never, ever right about anything!

One more thing - I'm no hypocrite. Post something by a right-wing site (other than InfoWars) and I'll read it (no videos please)...and THEN I'll decide whether it's factual or not. I do that because sometimes right-wing sites post factual stuff. It's just sad that you can't allow yourself to realize that sometimes left-wing sites post factual stuff, too.
 
bearpoker said:
Cherry picked facts. You haven't been allowed to read the rebuttal.
Click to expand...

The rebuttal? You mean the Schiff memo? I've read it.

In any case, I don't know what "cherry picked facts" you are talking about. Perhaps you can clarify?

But be aware that I consider the Nunez memo...as well as the Schiff memo...to be off topic to this thread. Don't be surprised if I decline to comment.
 
Parrish said:
The fake Russian ads the trolls used against Hillary. Most likely where Nunes and his guys read about the "story" as well.
Click to expand...

Oh. I can't say that I've ever seen any "fake Russian ads", so I still don't know what narrative you think I've fallen for.
 
Tanngrisnir said:
The fact is that there is zero credible evidence, none, nada, that supports the asshat Uranium One conspiracy theory, nor have you or anyone else produced any, nor can you.
Click to expand...

I've not taken part in that conspiracy theory, so I see no reason to produce anything in regard to it. But that doesn't change my judgment of this Dem memo. Do you have any actual facts?
 
SonOfDaedalus said:
Where is the evidence that Hillary makes any money from the Clinton Foundation?

Let's say you run a charity for children with cancer. I donate to your charity. Would this be considered a bribe?

The answer is no because you don't profit from your charity. There's no real incentive for corruption.

Now if these donors were giving Hillary's private business loans, (like Kushner's scandal) that's incentive for corruption.
Click to expand...

I think you are missing a bit of logic here. Let's break this down, okay?

Under your scenario...

1. I run a charity.

2. You donate to my charity.

3. You kind of skip over the "pay to play" part which means I give you some compensation for your donation. In the case of Hillary, that compensation would be related to her position as Sec State.

4. That donation may not go into MY pocket, but it does go into an organization that I'm running. But my compensation does benefit you.

5. So yes...that donation could be considered a bribe.

But hey...that's the way these political bribes work. There are many, many politicians engaged in the same activity. That's called "the swamp".
 
Last edited:
Glen Contrarian said:
Since when did the Republicans ever need evidence to accuse Hillary of anything? Remember, there were at least eight federal investigations of Hillary concerning Benghazi, most of which were held by the Hillary-must-die GOP-led House Benghazi Committee, and ALL of the investigations found zero wrongdoing on her part...but if you ask any faithful conservative Fox-News watcher, Hillary's guilty as sin of something Benghazi - doesn't matter what it is, doesn't matter that there's zero evidence, she must be guilty!
Click to expand...

We've been through this before, but the congressional investigations were not criminal actions, and they became drawn out and more complicated because Hillary Clinton and the administration were doing their best to avoid providing information requested. They report also revealed quite a bit of 'wrongdoing' -- mismanagement, neglect, poor decisions, and attempts to conceal.
 
Mycroft said:
I've not taken part in that conspiracy theory, so I see no reason to produce anything in regard to it. But that doesn't change my judgment of this Dem memo. Do you have any actual facts?
Click to expand...

The facts are contained in the story at the link.
 
Tanngrisnir said:
The facts are contained in the story at the link.
Click to expand...

No...the facts I'm looking for...waiting for...is the actual testimony. The story doesn't have those facts.
 
Mycroft said:
No...the facts I'm looking for...waiting for...is the actual testimony. The story doesn't have those facts.
Click to expand...

They statements they made are either true or they're not. There is no rational reason to believe that the dems would have stated that something happened that didn't actually happen, as it could and would be easily disproven by republicans, to say nothing of the fact that republicans have been mysteriously silent on this (ahem) 'issue' for quite some time now.
 
Mycroft said:
Considering how memos, summaries and leaked information is, as both Dems and Reps...I'm sure...will agree, subject to bias and spin and considering this particular summary is equally subject to bias and spin and considering the actual transcript of the closed session testimony is not available and considering that this summary was created and leaked by Dem committee members...undoubtedly against the wishes of the Rep side of the committee...I have no choice but to conclude that this summary has very low credibility.

I'll await actual facts.
Click to expand...

That it's on mother jones lowers the bar of reliable significantly.
 
Mycroft said:
I think you are missing a bit of logic here. Let's break this down, okay?

Under your scenario...

1. I run a charity.

2. You donate to my charity.

3. You kind of skip over the "pay to play" part which means I give you some compensation for your donation. In the case of Hillary, that compensation would be related to her position as Sec State.

4. That donation may not go into MY pocket, but it does go into an organization that I'm running. But my compensation does benefit you.

5. So yes...that donation could be considered a bribe.

But hey...that's the way these political bribes work. There are many, many politicians engaged in the same activity. That's called "the swamp".
Click to expand...
That and Bill's speech in Moscow was actually worth $500k? :lamo

Just have to remember, these are the same people that sold Lincoln bedroom nights for political donations.
This is just the same thing, from the same people on a larger scale, yet so many want to deny the Clinton's obvious true nature.
 
Tanngrisnir said:
They statements they made are either true or they're not. There is no rational reason to believe that the dems would have stated that something happened that didn't actually happen, as it could and would be easily disproven by republicans, to say nothing of the fact that republicans have been mysteriously silent on this (ahem) 'issue' for quite some time now.
Click to expand...

Perhaps you missed the part of my post where I mentioned lack of credibility caused by spin and bias.

That's why I prefer facts.
 
Renae said:
That it's on mother jones lowers the bar of reliable significantly.
Click to expand...

I don't have an issue with Mother Jones. I normally dismiss the "interpretation" of the person writing the article or the publication presenting it. This story has been presented by a number of organizations.

Here's another one: Dems: Uranium One informant provided 'no evidence' of Clinton 'quid pro quo' | TheHill

Same story that's based on this Dem memo that, in my opinion, is useless without the actual transcript of the testimony.
 
Mycroft said:
I don't have an issue with Mother Jones. I normally dismiss the "interpretation" of the person writing the article or the publication presenting it. This story has been presented by a number of organizations.

Here's another one: Dems: Uranium One informant provided 'no evidence' of Clinton 'quid pro quo' | TheHill

Same story that's based on this Dem memo that, in my opinion, is useless without the actual transcript of the testimony.
Click to expand...

Well I have a low view of MJ because it's as shill partisan left as Hannity is on the right.
 
NeverTrumpGOP said:
The informant is not credible? Who would have thought.



https://www.motherjones.com/politic...ed-talking-about-a-uranium-one-whistleblower/
Click to expand...

Here's Victoria Toensings response.........

The informants lawyer has responded...

Toensing tweeted: #FakeNews. Reporter NEVER called me. Campbell said Russians bragged about influence with #Clintons. Said Russians paid APCO $3M to do free work for corrupt #ClintonFoundation. WJC got $500,000 for speech from Russians backing #UraniumOne stock. Guilty. #maga

Toensing then said: #UraniumOne witness also told Congress Russians were confident Deal would be approved because of their influence with corrupt #Clintons. Russians mocked #Obama for being weak and naive about what they were doing. Dem Memo omits and twists facts. #maga

Like I said earlier, the Democrats have zero credibillity. Its always party before Country.
 
Fenton said:
Democrat committee members are not credible. Adam Schiff is a great example of this so its best to wait until all of the facts come out

Besides, there's already ample evidence that Clinton was running a pay to play scam without the over 140 million dollars donated to the Clinton foundation by people tied to the Uranium One deal....

Clinton Foundation Donors got weapons deals from Clintons State Dept
Clinton Foundation Donors Got Weapons Deals From Hillary Clinton's State Department
Click to expand...

The uranium one story was bs from day one Fenton. How many times do you have to hear it to get it? Evidently.....many more times.
 
dcsports said:
We've been through this before, but the congressional investigations were not criminal actions, and they became drawn out and more complicated because Hillary Clinton and the administration were doing their best to avoid providing information requested. They report also revealed quite a bit of 'wrongdoing' -- mismanagement, neglect, poor decisions, and attempts to conceal.
Click to expand...

But....you have nothing. As usual. Typical conservative wank.
 
Mycroft said:
I think you are missing a bit of logic here. Let's break this down, okay?

Under your scenario...

1. I run a charity.

2. You donate to my charity.

3. You kind of skip over the "pay to play" part which means I give you some compensation for your donation. In the case of Hillary, that compensation would be related to her position as Sec State.

4. That donation may not go into MY pocket, but it does go into an organization that I'm running. But my compensation does benefit you.

5. So yes...that donation could be considered a bribe.

But hey...that's the way these political bribes work. There are many, many politicians engaged in the same activity. That's called "the swamp".
Click to expand...

LOL. Is that your best attempt at logic?

How does the donation benefit Hillary Clinton personally? You casually gloss over that very critical part.

But I can surely tell you how a loan to Kushner's company benefits Jared Kushner. But THAT you don't care about.
 
SonOfDaedalus said:
LOL. Is that your best attempt at logic?

How does the donation benefit Hillary Clinton personally? You casually gloss over that very critical part.

But I can surely tell you how a loan to Kushner's company benefits Jared Kushner. But THAT you don't care about.
Click to expand...

Hey...you are the one who said she runs her charity. Her charity gets cash and she provides a service. Quid pro quo right there.
 
Mycroft said:
Hey...you are the one who said she runs her charity. Her charity gets cash and she provides a service. Quid pro quo right there.
Click to expand...

So Hillary cares so much about charity that she does political favors for donors? That makes no sense.

Moreover, there are many politicians who have favorite charities that others donate to. Maybe some donate to those charities to get closer to a politician. If you make a big donation you end up in a dinner at a table with a politician. None of that is considered quid pro quo. You know why? Because there's no quid. You need to show the Hillary personally benefited in some way from her charity. If you don't have that, you have nothing. And that's exactly what you have...nothing.

But Kushner? He's probably going to end up in prison.
 
SonOfDaedalus said:
So Hillary cares so much about charity that she does political favors for donors? That makes no sense.

Moreover, there are many politicians who have favorite charities that others donate to. Maybe some donate to those charities to get closer to a politician. If you make a big donation you end up in a dinner at a table with a politician. None of that is considered quid pro quo. You know why? Because there's no quid. You need to show the Hillary personally benefited in some way from her charity. If you don't have that, you have nothing. And that's exactly what you have...nothing.

But Kushner? He's probably going to end up in prison.
Click to expand...

shrug...

First you imply she runs the charity...now you say she doesn't care about it.

Make up your mind, eh?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom