- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Newsweek’s summary of their own Russia-Clinton story
Posted on 10/21/17 at 9:28 pm
Posted on 10/21/17 at 9:28 pm
Newsweek
Wouldn’t any sane person(s) admit that the CF’s receiving millions of dollars and Bill’s paid speech looks like evidence?
quote:
Assessment: Yes, the foundation received money and Bill Clinton was paid to give a speech, but there’s no evidence the Clintons were paid by Russians to push through the uranium deal.
Wouldn’t any sane person(s) admit that the CF’s receiving millions of dollars and Bill’s paid speech looks like evidence?
This post was edited on 10/21/17 at 9:29 pm
16
Posted on 10/21/17 at 9:40 pm to Eli Goldfinger
Immediately the Clinton Praetorian Guards spring into action to carry their water. Amazing at how far the media will stretch stories and connections to paint Trump negatively yet will deflect, lie, project and smear all in their futile effort to provide cover for the nefarious actions of the Clintons. Deplorable.
Posted on 10/21/17 at 9:42 pm to Eli Goldfinger
Lib loopholeology
They think we’re a bunch of chumps
They think we’re a bunch of chumps
Posted on 10/21/17 at 9:46 pm to Eli Goldfinger
But Trump not receiving anything from Russia nor them doing any favors for Russians deserves a special counsel 
Posted on 10/21/17 at 9:50 pm to Eli Goldfinger
quote:
Wouldn’t any sane person(s) admit that the CF’s receiving millions of dollars and Bill’s paid speech looks like evidence?
I believe Hillary did conspire over this deal but unless we have a smoking gun (like an email marking out the parameters of the deal) then it's circumstantial at best and we've already seen how much leeway with the law the Clintons get.
Posted on 10/22/17 at 5:54 am to Eli Goldfinger
quote:
Wouldn’t any sane person(s) admit that the CF’s receiving millions of dollars and Bill’s paid speech looks like evidence?
There's the problem. You expect liberals & the media to act sane.
Posted on 10/22/17 at 6:11 am to chickenpotpie
Why a media entity feels the need to try and walk back a 100% honest and informative article is interesting.
Posted on 10/22/17 at 6:43 am to Strannix
quote:Because it was her turn
Why a media entity feels the need to try and walk back a 100% honest and informative article is interesting.
Posted on 10/22/17 at 6:43 am to Strannix
quote:Newsweek was about to get suicided.
Why a media entity feels the need to try and walk back a 100% honest and informative article is interesting
Posted on 10/22/17 at 7:24 am to Eli Goldfinger
It’s not as if the Clinton’s are going to leave evidence around.....not their style. However, if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it’s a duck.
Posted on 10/22/17 at 8:11 am to Eli Goldfinger
The clintons received large sums of money from russians
During that time hillary approved an uranium sale to russia
Newsweek's conclusion: no evidence
There's a reason newsweek no longer has to kill trees to print their rag.
During that time hillary approved an uranium sale to russia
Newsweek's conclusion: no evidence
There's a reason newsweek no longer has to kill trees to print their rag.
Posted on 10/22/17 at 8:16 am to Eli Goldfinger
quote:
Wouldn’t any sane person(s) admit that the CF’s receiving millions of dollars and Bill’s paid speech looks like evidence?
This is nothing. Do some research on Victor Pinchuk and its quite easy to see why Putin hates Hillary.
Posted on 10/22/17 at 8:21 am to Eli Goldfinger
Remember in the movie "Hoffa" when the reporter gets a package and it's a dick and balls and then he tells them "Kill the Story!"
That's probably about what happened here
That's probably about what happened here
Posted on 10/22/17 at 8:27 am to Eli Goldfinger
The prevailing defense leading this right now is “The Clinton Foundation is a charity organization and the Clintons don’t profit from it.” and “Bill has gotten paid six figures on several dozen speeches, not just by Russia.”
Now my response to these excuses are...
1. WTF does Bill have to say to a bunch of Nuclear Energy Sector Russian executives to begin with?? We’re not stupid. We already know that most of, if not all of, these “speeches” were simply quid pro quo installments for when Hillary became President. Notice how he’s not done anymore six figure speeches since she lost? You’re losing because we see what’s really going on and aren’t falling for your retarded attempts to obfuscate obvious corruption.
2. The Clinton Foundation pays exorbitant seven figure salaries to the Clinton family members, including Chelsea. On top of this, the Foundation actually spends its money on hundreds of large scale projects where corporations get paid to render services. For example, the CF pays a contracting company to build a new wing to a hospital. Tens of millions of dollars. And conveniently, this contracting company pays its CEO a massive bonus. And this CEO turns around and hosts a huge fund raising party for the Clinton Campaign where he donates several million to her PAC, which then uses these funds to pay for a private jet to fly the Clintons all over the country campaigning.
In other words, don’t give us the bullshite that the Clintons didnt get any part of this $145 million donated from the group involved in the Uranium One deal.
Hillary spent nearly $1 billion on her campaign. She made a shite ton of quid pro quo promises on deals to secure that insane amount of donations. And the Uranium One deal was one of them.
Now my response to these excuses are...
1. WTF does Bill have to say to a bunch of Nuclear Energy Sector Russian executives to begin with?? We’re not stupid. We already know that most of, if not all of, these “speeches” were simply quid pro quo installments for when Hillary became President. Notice how he’s not done anymore six figure speeches since she lost? You’re losing because we see what’s really going on and aren’t falling for your retarded attempts to obfuscate obvious corruption.
2. The Clinton Foundation pays exorbitant seven figure salaries to the Clinton family members, including Chelsea. On top of this, the Foundation actually spends its money on hundreds of large scale projects where corporations get paid to render services. For example, the CF pays a contracting company to build a new wing to a hospital. Tens of millions of dollars. And conveniently, this contracting company pays its CEO a massive bonus. And this CEO turns around and hosts a huge fund raising party for the Clinton Campaign where he donates several million to her PAC, which then uses these funds to pay for a private jet to fly the Clintons all over the country campaigning.
In other words, don’t give us the bullshite that the Clintons didnt get any part of this $145 million donated from the group involved in the Uranium One deal.
Hillary spent nearly $1 billion on her campaign. She made a shite ton of quid pro quo promises on deals to secure that insane amount of donations. And the Uranium One deal was one of them.
This post was edited on 10/22/17 at 8:29 am
Posted on 10/22/17 at 8:30 am to Bard
quote:I think that there is a great possibility that the email in question might be found in the 30,0000 that were wiped, you know, with a cloth or something.....
smoking gun (like an email marking out the parameters of the deal)
Posted on 10/22/17 at 8:33 am to Eli Goldfinger
So Newsweek admits there is a stain on their dress but won't admit what the stain is and where it might have come from?
Amazing journalism right there.
Amazing journalism right there.
Posted on 10/22/17 at 10:08 am to Eli Goldfinger
quote:
Assessment: Yes, the foundation received money and Bill Clinton was paid to give a speech, but there’s no evidence the Clintons were paid by Russians to push through the uranium deal.
But even though there has been no corroborating evidence, the Russian dossier seems to be all they need to continue calls for an investigation of Trump and possible Russian collusion.
Posted on 10/22/17 at 10:13 am to Eli Goldfinger
They must have gotten that assessment from Snopes, which almost exactly says the same thing. What a load of crap.
Posted on 10/22/17 at 12:06 pm to Bard
quote:
conspire over this deal but unless we have a smoking gun (like an email marking out the parameters of the deal) then it's circumstantial at best and we've already seen how much leeway with the law the Clintons get.
People are convicted using circumstantial evidence all the time. Enough circumstantial evidence can lead to guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. You don't always have to have a tape of them making the deal or a signed confession.
Posted on 10/22/17 at 12:36 pm to MadDoggyStyle
Snopes is still a thing? Weren’t they basically exposed as a shill mouthpiece?
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News