|
|
|
The signs the Hawaiians held up to greet Trump, so pleasing. Happy.
|
|
|
|
|
There's a difference between questioning whether or not Obama was born in Hawaii and the authenticity of his birth certificate. I, for one, believe that he was born there but still think that there's a very good chance that the document is forged for one or more reasons. Two independent teams of experts concluded that it was and I reviewed their arguments and found them compelling. But, oh sorry, I should have asked first, do you care? I'm guessing not. That would fall under the category of challenging truths and who wants that?
Modified by Jim at Sat, Nov 04, 2017, 17:07:42
|
|
|
|
I'm just laughing at the paranoid lunacy behind it all. You pick your team's of experts and away you go, into your own bubble. Haha. Other teams of experts are available.
|
|
|
|
How did we get into this position where the biggest purveyor of fake news is the President of the United States?
Modified by eDrek at Sat, Nov 04, 2017, 18:29:54
|
|
|
|
Jim, you're such an asshole as usual.
|
|
|
|
Hillary's going to jail, Drek. I was right. You'll see.
|
|
|
|
I called you an asshole because you are one. Your previous ignoramus post to me has asshole written all over it.
Also, I don't think the word asshole is a swear word. I don't know. Just my opinion.
And then you jump the topic to Hillary is going to jail. Wow, Jim. You can't stay on topic. What the hell is in the water up there in Victoria? Geez. Get a grip.
|
|
|
|
Yeah, I'm all over this one. No one in the Trump campaign ever met with any Russians. But HILLARY!!!
It's so clear to me now.
Modified by eDrek at Sat, Nov 04, 2017, 20:33:18
|
|
|
|
That's it. Hillary was in charge of that child sex trafficking ring at that Comet pizza place.
No fake news there.
Jim, your guys practically created fake news and they wallow in it.
Modified by eDrek at Sat, Nov 04, 2017, 20:43:48
|
|
|
|
It looks like as Secretary of State she approved the sale of 20% of US uranium reserves to Russia by a Canadian middleman who was also a major contributor to the Bill Clinton foundation.
Deciding whether that was or was not strictly legal, wise, or 'politically acceptable' is something that no doubt will keep many a lawyer in fees for kingdom come.
I don't really understand the American system, not being part of it, but I get the polarization of opinion & that indicates to me that all is not well.
Over here a once pugnacious BBC journalist, now beyond his sell by date, when asked why he was so obnoxious in interviewing anyone of any political persuasion, said.....I just want to know why those lying bastards are lying to me.
Everyone gets that.
|
|
|
|
I know that you prefer your experts like Breitbart and Infowars, but I'll go with this one on the uranium deal:
https://www.snopes.com/hillary-clinton-uranium-russia-deal/
It seems that what you say and what Snopes says are at odds to some degree.
|
|
|
|
I don't prefer anyone. Thanks for that.
|
|
|
|
Ok, Jim, give me the Infowars link. I'm sure Alex is right on the money, as usual.
|
|
|
|
This is the first comment under the Clarice Feldman article. Tell me honestly how this isn’t pay-for-play:
The Uranium one investigation should lead back to the Center for American Progress, John Podesta and George Soros along with their patsy and Russian plant Barack Hussein Obama. The Podesta Group has worked under the radar for years finding jobs in our government for those whose allegiance is to Russia, John himself has been in charge of hiring or recommending many of those people as early as 1992 when he was the leader of the Clinton transition team, then he became involved again when Bush took office in 2000 when he was instrumental in persuading them to keep most of the Clinton holdovers, then low and behold, John pops up again in 2008 as obamas transition team leader in charge of hiring people of his ilk into our government. Podesta has been installing people of his ilk into our government on a regular basis since 1992 and most likely before that with his connections to the first Bush administration in 1988. That's 28 years of being exceedingly influential in shaping our government, specifically our intelligence and foreign departments, is it any wonder that the Podesta Group was hired by Organizations with ties to the Kremlin, our government is full of bureaucrats who work against the citizens of America. The Deep State is not a conspiracy theory, it is a product of the Soros, Bush, Clinton, Obama and Podesta one world government network....almost everyone of any power hired over the last 28 years could very well be Deep State and a traitor to our constitution and sovereignty......Trump will need our help to save the country, if it's not to late already. "Uranium investors
SEPTEMBER 2005
Frank Giustra, a Canadian mining financier, wins a major uranium deal in Kazakhstan for his company, UrAsia, days after visiting the country with former President Bill Clinton. 2006
Uranium One
Mr. Giustra donates $31.3 million to the Clinton Foundation. FEBRUARY 2007
UrAsia merges with a South African mining company and assumes the name Uranium One. In the next two months, the company expands into the United States. JUNE 2008
Negotations begin for an investment in Uranium One by the Russian atomic energy agency, Rosatom. Rosatom
2008-2010
Uranium One and former UrAsia investors make $8.65 million in donations to the Clinton Foundation. Uranium One investors stand to profit on a Rosatom deal. JUNE 2009
Rosatom subsidiary ARMZ takes a 17 percent ownership stake in Uranium One. 17% STAKE
2010-2011
Investors give millions more in donations to the Clinton Foundation. JUNE 2010
Rosatom seeks majority ownership of Uranium One, pending approval by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, of which the State Department is a member.
Rosatom says it does not plan to increase its stake in Uranium One or to take the company private. JUNE 29, 2010
Bill Clinton is paid $500,000 for a speech in Moscow by a Russian investment bank with ties to the Kremlin that assigned a buy rating to Uranium One stock. OCTOBER 2010
Rosatom’s majority ownership approved by Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States." "No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.
ARTICLE I, SECTION 9, CLAUSE 8 US Constitution "
|
|
|
|
Not buying it. Fake news from the right.
I mean - "finding jobs in our government for those whose allegiance is to Russia". Come on!
But, what do I know?
NOTHING
Modified by eDrek at Sun, Nov 05, 2017, 12:22:42
|
|
|
|
Drek doesn’t do discussion well and evidence is a bit much for him to process. But, to me, this timeline is ridiculously strong circumstantial proof of bribery. Now factor in the FBI agent who just now escaped the Obama’s admin’s gag order and who, according to his lawyer, is prepared to testify about direct knowledge of Clinton bribery. Or the fact that the related Clinton Foundation donations were made to the org’s Canadian sub to escape detection. And so much else!
Tell me this, Pat. I know you’re not in the states but neither am I. From what you’ve seen so far, all the many scandals including now this latest re buying the Dem primary, do you think I was smart or foolish to bet the prosecutor on my current case that Hillary will be indicted by November 1st next year?
|
|
|
|
Clinton Cash.
It's got everything in it except for facts.
|
|
|
|
Have you? Honestly, have you? Start to finish - have you? I not only watched it but read the book and also many other articles on topic by Schweizer and seen lots of interviews.
You are such a hypocrite, though, bullshitting about "facts" when you refuse to address them when they're right there in front of you.
I ask you again how you can explain this timeline as anything other than proof of bribery?
"Uranium investors
SEPTEMBER 2005
Frank Giustra, a Canadian mining financier, wins a major uranium deal in Kazakhstan for his company, UrAsia, days after visiting the country with former President Bill Clinton. 2006
Uranium One
Mr. Giustra donates $31.3 million to the Clinton Foundation. FEBRUARY 2007
UrAsia merges with a South African mining company and assumes the name Uranium One. In the next two months, the company expands into the United States. JUNE 2008
Negotations begin for an investment in Uranium One by the Russian atomic energy agency, Rosatom. Rosatom
2008-2010
Uranium One and former UrAsia investors make $8.65 million in donations to the Clinton Foundation. Uranium One investors stand to profit on a Rosatom deal. JUNE 2009
Rosatom subsidiary ARMZ takes a 17 percent ownership stake in Uranium One. 17% STAKE
2010-2011
Investors give millions more in donations to the Clinton Foundation. JUNE 2010
Rosatom seeks majority ownership of Uranium One, pending approval by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, of which the State Department is a member.
Rosatom says it does not plan to increase its stake in Uranium One or to take the company private. JUNE 29, 2010
Bill Clinton is paid $500,000 for a speech in Moscow by a Russian investment bank with ties to the Kremlin that assigned a buy rating to Uranium One stock. OCTOBER 2010
Rosatom’s majority ownership approved by Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States." "No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.
ARTICLE I, SECTION 9, CLAUSE 8 US Constitution "
|
|
|
|
This comes from that laughing stock Snopes:
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 proposed foreign acquisitions 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.
All nine federal agencies and the Utah Division of Radiation Control were required to approve the Uranium One transaction before it could go forward. According to The New York Times, Clinton may not have even directly participated in the decision. Then-Assistant Secretary of State Jose Fernandez, whose job it was to represent the State Dept. on CFIUS, said Clinton “never intervened” in committee matters. Clinton herself has said she wasn’t personally involved.
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.
|
|
|
|
First, it doesn't matter that Clinton was "only" the Chair of CFIUS. Even if she didn't have complete control theoretically, she could easily have been bribed to exert her considerable influence over the decision. We'll know more about this soon. Very soon.
As for the pathetic defense that the uranium never left the US anyway so what's the concern, that's now been exposed as false:
After the Obama administration approved the sale of a Canadian mining company with significant U.S. uranium reserves to a firm owned by Russia’s government, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission assured Congress and the public the new owners couldn’t export any raw nuclear fuel from America’s shores. “No uranium produced at either facility may be exported,” the NRC declared in a November 2010 press release that announced that ARMZ, a subsidiary of the Russian state-owned Rosatom, had been approved to take ownership of the Uranium One mining firm and its American assets. A year later, the nuclear regulator repeated the assurance in a letter to Sen. John Barrasso, a Wyoming Republican in whose state Uranium One operated mines. “Neither Uranium One Inc. nor AMRZ holds a specific NRC export license. In order to export uranium from the United States, Uranium One Inc. or ARMZ would need to apply for and obtain a specific NRC license authorizing the exports of uranium for use in reactor fuel,” then-NRC Chairman Gregory Jaczko wrote to Barrasso.The NRC never issued an export license to the Russian firm, a fact so engrained in the narrative of the Uranium One controversy that it showed up in The Washington Post’s official fact-checker site this week. “We have noted repeatedly that extracted uranium could not be exported by Russia without a license, which Rosatom does not have,” the Post reported on Monday, linking to the 2011 Barrasso letter. Yet NRC memos reviewed by The Hill show that it did approve the shipment of yellowcake uranium — the raw material used to make nuclear fuel and weapons — from the Russian-owned mines in the United States to Canada in 2012 through a third party. Later, the Obama administration approved some of that uranium going all the way to Europe, government documents show. NRC officials said they could not disclose the total amount of uranium that Uranium One exported because the information is proprietary. They did, however, say that the shipments only lasted from 2012 to 2014 and that they are unaware of any exports since then. NRC officials told The Hill that Uranium One exports flowed from Wyoming to Canada and on to Europe between 2012 and 2014, and the approval involved a process with multiple agencies. Rather than give Rosatom a direct export license — which would have raised red flags inside a Congress already suspicious of the deal — the NRC in 2012 authorized an amendment to an existing export license for a Paducah, Ky.-based trucking firm called RSB Logistics Services Inc. to simply add Uranium One to the list of clients whose uranium it could move to Canada. The license, reviewed by The Hill, is dated March 16, 2012, and it increased the amount of uranium ore concentrate that RSB Logistics could ship to the Cameco Corp. plant in Ontario from 7,500,000 kilograms to 12,000,000 kilograms and added Uranium One to the “other parties to Export.” The move escaped notice in Congress. Officials at RSB, Cameco and Rosatom did not return repeated phone calls or emails seeking comment. Uranium One's American arm, however, emailed a statement to The Hill on Wednesday evening confirming it did export uranium to Canada through the trucking firm and that 25 percent of that nuclear fuel eventually made its way outside North America to Europe and Asia, stressing all the exports complied with federal law. “None of the US U308 product produced to date has been sold to non-US customers except for approximately 25% which was sold via book transfer at the conversion facilities to customers from Western Europe and Asia," executive Donna Wickers said. “Any physical export of the product from conversion facilities to non-US destinations is under the control of such customers and subject to NRC regulation.” The United States actually imports the majority of the uranium it uses as fuel. In 2016, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, 24 percent of the imports came from Kazakhstan and 14 percent came from Russia. The sale of Uranium One to a Russian state-owned firm, however, has created political waves that have led to multiple congressional investigations. Republicans say they want to learn how the sale could have been approved and whether there was political interference. “The more that surfaces about this deal, the more questions it raises," Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) said in a statement released after this story was published. Grassley, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, has launched an investigation into Uranium One. "It now appears that despite pledges to the contrary, U.S. uranium made its way overseas as a part of the Uranium One deal," Grassley said in the statement. "What’s more disturbing, those transactions were apparently made possible by various Obama Administration agencies while the Democrat-controlled Congress turned a blind eye. “Americans deserve assurances that political influence was not a factor in all this. I’m increasingly convinced that a special counsel — someone with no prior involvement in any of these deals — should shine a light on this ordeal and get answers for the American people.” Government officials told The Hill that the NRC was able to amend the export license affecting Uranium One because of two other decisions previously made by the Obama administration as part of a Russian “reset” in President Obama’s first term. First, Obama reinstated a U.S.-Russia civilian nuclear energy cooperation agreement. President George W. Bush had signed the agreement in 2008, but withdrew from it before it could take effect after Russia became involved in a military conflict with the former Soviet republic of Georgia, a U.S. ally, and after new concerns surfaced that Moscow was secretly aiding Iran’s nuclear weapons ambitions. Obama re-submitted the agreement for approval by the Democrat-controlled Congress in May 2010, declaring Russia should be viewed as a friendly partner under Section 123 the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 after agreeing to a new nuclear weapons reduction deal and helping the U.S. with Iran. “I have concluded: (1) that the situation in Georgia need no longer be considered an obstacle to proceeding with the proposed Agreement; and (2) that the level and scope of U.S.-Russia cooperation on Iran are sufficient to justify resubmitting the proposed agreement to the Congress,” Obama said in a statement sent to Congress. Congress took no action, which allowed the deal to become effective 90 days later. The other step that allowed uranium from the Russian-controlled mines in the United States to be exported came in 2011, when the Commerce Department removed Rosatom, Uranium One’s owner, from a list of restricted companies that could not export nuclear or other sensitive materials or technologies without special approval under the Export Administration Regulations. “This final rule removes the Federal Atomic Power of Russia (Rusatom) now known as the Russian State Corporation of Atomic Energy (Rosatom),” the Commerce Department’s Bureau of Industry and Security declared in a May 24, 2011, notice in the Federal Register that created few waves. Rosatom had been on the list for a long time, so long in fact that it was still listed in the federal database under its old name, Rusatom. Officials said the effort to remove the Russian nuclear firm was a “policy decision” driven by the State Department, Energy Department, Commerce Department and other agencies with Russia portfolios designed to recognize that bilateral relations between Russia and the United States had improved slightly. Nine months after Rosatom was removed from the export restrictions list, the NRC issued its license amendment to the trucking firm in March 2012 that cleared the way for Uranium One exports, making it effective for nearly five years, to the end of 2017. But the NRC also stipulated that Uranium One’s uranium should be returned to the United States. “The uranium authorized for export is to be returned to the United States,” the NRC instructed in the export license amendment. But that, too, didn’t happen. Officials told The Hill that the Energy Department subsequently gave approval for some of the American fuel to depart Canada and be exported to European enrichment centers, according to a 2015 letter the NRC sent to Rep. Pete Visclosky (D-Ind.). The NRC explained to Visclosky that it had originally stipulated that after the American uranium was treated in Canada, it had to “then return the uranium to the U.S. for further processing.” “That license stated that the Canadian Government needed to obtain prior approval before any of the U.S. material could be transferred to any country other than the U.S.,” the letter added. “Subsequently the U.S. Department of Energy granted approval for some re-transfers of U.S. uranium from the Canadian conversion facilities to European enrichment plants.” The NRC added, however, it did not believe any of the American uranium made its way “directly” to Russia. And it added that the whole supply chain scenario was made possible by the resubmission of Obama’s Section 123 agreement in 2010. “The transfer of the U.S.-supplied uranium from Canada to Europe noted above also was subject to applicable Section 123 agreements,” the NRC noted. Section 123 is the part of the Atomic Energy Act that allows for the U.S. to share civilian nuclear technology and goods with allies. The Uranium One deal has been controversial since at least 2015, when The New York Times reported former President Bill Clinton received a $500,000 speech fee from a Russian bank and millions in donations to his charitable foundation from sources interested in the deal around the time the Uranium One sale was being reviewed by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s State Department and eight other federal agencies. Hillary Clinton has said she delegated the approval decision to a deputy on the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) and did not apply any pressure. Bill Clinton has said the monies he received had no bearing on his wife’s policymaking decisions. The 2015 Times article included a single reference to Uranium One officials saying they believed some of its American uranium made its way to Europe and Japan without any reference to how that occurred. NRC officials said the multiple decisions documented in the memos, including the 2012 amendment of the third-party export license, provide the most complete description to date of how Russian-owned uranium ended up getting exported from the United States. The entire Uranium One episode is getting a fresh look after The Hill disclosed late last month that the FBI had gathered extensive evidence in 2009 — before the mine sale was approved — that Rosatom’s main executive in the United States was engaged in a racketeering scheme that included bribery, kickbacks, extortion and money laundering. The probe was enabled by an undercover informant working for the FBI inside the Russian nuclear industry, court records show. But the Justice Department did not make that evidence public until 2014, long after Rosatom benefited from multiple favorable decisions from the Obama administration. The Senate Judiciary, House Intelligence and House Oversight committees have all announced plans to investigate the new revelation, and the Justice Department has given approval for the undercover informant to testify for the first time about what he witnessed the Russians doing to influence Obama administration decisions favorable to Rosatom between 2009 and 2014. Hillary Clinton and other Democrats have described the renewed focus on the Uranium One deal as simply a distraction from the current investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election, in which Donald Trump became the 45th president. She also says that concerns about the Uranium One sale have long ago been “debunked.” But it’s not just Republicans who have said that the revelation the FBI had evidence that Rosatom was engaged in criminality during the time it was receiving favorable decisions from the U.S. government deserves fresh scrutiny. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), a member of both the Senate Intelligence and Judiciary committees, told The Hill she would like to learn more about what the FBI knew. Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-Md.) has criticized Republicans for investigating Clinton, but said on “Morning Joe” last month he has "no problem looking into" the Uranium One deal. And Sen. Angus King (I-Maine) said Sunday on CNN that he believed it was appropriate for Congress to investigate the new information. “One of the House committees has already begun an oversight committee hearing," King said. "I always think oversight hearings are appropriate. I’ve been trying to understand this deal." King also repeated the oft-quoted narrative that the “company changed hands, but the uranium that is mined in the United States cannot leave the United States." The NRC license now shows now that Uranium One was, in fact, allowed to export American uranium. A legal expert on the CFIUS process told The Hill that the new revelation that the FBI knew that a Rosatom official was engaged in illegality on U.S. soil before the sale was approved could very well have affected the decision if that evidence had been made public in real time. “Criminal behavior would be something the committee would take into consideration when evaluating a transaction with a foreign company,” said Stewart Baker, a foreign commerce law expert at the Steptoe Johnson firm. “It is a consideration, but it is not something that would guarantee a particular outcome.” He said the committee board would need “to consider how serious the criminal behavior is, in the context of this transaction, how likely is it that someone acting against U.S. security interest would take action,” he added.
http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/358339-uranium-one-deal-led-to-some-exports-to-europe-memos-show
Related link: http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/358339-uranium-one-deal-led-to-some-exports-to-europe-memos-show
|
|
|
|
According to the unreliable Snopes regarding CIFUS:
the secretary of the treasury is its chairperson
|
|
|
|
I can't recall where I saw that but it's of little importance. How about admitting that you're wrong about the uranium leaving the country? And how about addressing the timeline?
|
|
|
|
I may be wrong about that -- can't find where I first saw it -- petty difference
I can't recall where I saw that but it's of little importance. How about admitting that you're wrong about the uranium leaving the country? And how about addressing the timeline?
Yeah, I think you're wrong on who was chairman of CIFUS. It's not a 'may be' as you say.
I'm sticking for now with the Snopes account of the story, which I don't think you bothered to read.
|
|
|
|
Can't you answer anything? The Hill article categorically debunks the claim that no uranium left the states. Deal with it.
And yes, of course I read the Snopes story. What a joke it is. Fluff like this is a great example:
The timing of Telfer’s Clinton Foundation donations and Bill Clinton’s Renaissance Capital speaking fee 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. Moreover, neither Clinton nor her department possessed sole power of approval over said transaction.
As I showed you, the donations and payoff (Clinton's half million) came before, during and after the deal. The timeline I showed you explains all that. Did you read it? Want me to show it to you again? Here:
"Uranium investors
SEPTEMBER 2005
Frank Giustra, a Canadian mining financier, wins a major uranium deal in Kazakhstan for his company, UrAsia, days after visiting the country with former President Bill Clinton. 2006
Uranium One
Mr. Giustra donates $31.3 million to the Clinton Foundation. FEBRUARY 2007
UrAsia merges with a South African mining company and assumes the name Uranium One. In the next two months, the company expands into the United States. JUNE 2008
Negotations begin for an investment in Uranium One by the Russian atomic energy agency, Rosatom. Rosatom
2008-2010
Uranium One and former UrAsia investors make $8.65 million in donations to the Clinton Foundation. Uranium One investors stand to profit on a Rosatom deal. JUNE 2009
Rosatom subsidiary ARMZ takes a 17 percent ownership stake in Uranium One. 17% STAKE
2010-2011
Investors give millions more in donations to the Clinton Foundation. JUNE 2010
Rosatom seeks majority ownership of Uranium One, pending approval by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, of which the State Department is a member.
Rosatom says it does not plan to increase its stake in Uranium One or to take the company private. JUNE 29, 2010
Bill Clinton is paid $500,000 for a speech in Moscow by a Russian investment bank with ties to the Kremlin that assigned a buy rating to Uranium One stock. OCTOBER 2010
Rosatom’s majority ownership approved by Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States."
So what possible explanation can there be for all this money going to the Clintons this way other than the obvious inference which is that this was a massive payoff for favour. And don't forget, CFIUS signed off on the deal at the same time that the Russians were caught spying, bribing, money laundering and extorting to make it happen. Do you think that Holder told his fellow CFIUS members? Do you think Hillary knew? Why did the FBI put a gag order on their key witness and threaten to ruin him if he broke it?
Anyway, yeah, Clinton is going to jail.
|
|
|
|
But I don't find your source to be credible.
|
|
|
|
The Hill is totally legit as is the reporter on this story, John Solomon. Unless you have some justification for rejecting its reporting, you're just playing games.
|
|
|
|
And Alex Jones is legit, too.
I like the Snopes article. Sorry.
|
|
|
|
Jim, you never change. You play the same dirty game over and over again.
Sorry, but I don't see it your way and I don't care for your sources of so-called facts. Can I be anymore sincere than that or should I swear?
|
|
|
|
What matters is the truth. You have zero reason for disputing anything in Solomon's report. You just don't like to see that your story's falling apart. So fine, this story will continue to develop without your awareness and you'll continue laughing in total ignorance. Hillary will be indicted by the end of October. That's my bet anyways.
|
|
|
|
You only play to win and humiliate people. You don't really care about the truth.
Go ahead, last word is yours...
|
|
|
|
Jim, why should I take your word that your source is better than my source? Or that your source is even legit?
You've shown that you are fast and free with the facts stating that Clinton was the Chair of CIFUS when she was not. You are a part-time believer of Alex Jones. You're a big Breitbart reader and other fake news outlets.
|
|
|
|
Drek, you're a very naive, juvenile dick. It will be a great source of joy and entertainment watching you try to dig yourself out of your hole in the months to come.
|
|
|
|
Gee, Jim, you're so very kind to say this:
Drek, you're a very naive, juvenile dick. It will be a great source of
joy and entertainment watching you try to dig yourself out of your hole
in the months to come.
Jim, opinions are like assholes, everyone has one. I guess I should just bow down to your greatness and stop thinking for myself, eh?
|
|
|
|
Circumstantial proof? Do we have any lawyers round here? Surely, there's circumstantial evidence, but never, circumstantial proof. But then, I'm not a lawyer.
Is this how Jim gets hung up on all the conspiracy crap, by believing in circumstantial proof??
|
|
|
|
You're right, you're not a lawyer. I am. Cases get proven all the time on circumstantial evidence, even in criminal law where the burden of proof is beyond a reasonable doubt. In other words, circumstantial proof. Get it?
Perhaps this will help -
From Wikipedia:
Validity of circumstantial evidence[edit]A popular misconception is that circumstantial evidence is less valid or less important than direct evidence.[2][3] This is only partly true: direct evidence is popularly assumed to be the most powerful.[4] Many successful criminal prosecutions rely largely or entirely on circumstantial evidence, and civil charges are frequently based on circumstantial or indirect evidence. Much of the evidence against convicted American bomber Timothy McVeigh was circumstantial, for example. Speaking about McVeigh's trial, University of Michigan law professor Robert Precht said, "Circumstantial evidence can be, and often is much more powerful than direct evidence." [5] The 2004 murder trial of Scott Peterson was another high-profile conviction based heavily on circumstantial evidence.
|
|
|
|
That's alright. I didn't have any anyway.
Though, the phrase 'strong circumstantial proof' irks still.
Maybe it's the word strong, along with proof. Proof is surely binary. Neither weak nor strong. Evidence can be weak or strong. Proof is absolute.
Do I have a case?
|
|
|
|
Here's one online dictionary definition:
evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true, or to produce belief in its truth.
To me what is scary is the part where it says "to produce belief in its truth". So, we're now stuck in a world where we're only living with beliefs. Like if you believe it then it must be true.
And when the Trumpster won the election I was talking to a friend and I said what we really lost was the TRUTH. Sure, politics is full of untruths and slippery slime, but Trump took it and still takes it to a new level.
|
|
|
|
Trump seems as full of himself and as deluded as Rawat. I keep thinking of both of them these days, as I'm reading a biography of Hitler. The infectious self belief of these characters...
I was having a laugh about Trump the other day with a friend, and we got on to N Korea. He asked me what I would do about it. I said I have no idea. He pushed me, go on, what if you were in Trump's position. I said I don't know. I guess I'd have to hire someone smarter than me and say, hey, you deal with it. My friend was pleased that I was smart enough to recognise that I'm not the smartest person there is (as is the case for everybody except one lonely smartarse I guess), but you know Trump thinks he's really really smart, and I think that's not so good. Especially as he demonstrates day after day that he's really not.
|
|
|
|
Yeah, that Pentagon report or statement about North Korea was saying that the only way to get their nukes was to do a land invasion (I guess after we nuke them???) and that over 25 million people could be killed. It also said that North Korea would probably use their biological and chemical weapons. And you've South Korea, Japan, and Guam taking the big hits.
Yeah, Trump could easily lose his cool and try to wipe them off the map without understanding the whole picture.
|
|
|
|
I guess the best outcome would be for the regime to gently implode. I read Yeon-mi Park's story of her escape from N Korea. The country seems pretty thoroughly brainwashed and isolated. Leave it to fizzle out, but in the meantime, they're building more weapons... like I said, I don't have an answer at all. I just doubt Trump in the mix is going to be helpful.
|
|
|
|
I don’t agree with some of Jones’ stuff. Lots of it in fact. But some is right on the money. Here’san example of Salon and Newsweek outright lying about him. See for yourself. He reported that the NYT ran a full page Antifa ad which they pretended was false. They were lying.
Modified by Jim at Sun, Nov 05, 2017, 12:22:32
|
|
|
|
You’re so funny. I showed you one example of the liberal media LYING about Jones and you can’t even address it. So childish.
|
|
|
|
Changing the subject to whatever Salon wrote about Jones doesn't alter the REALITY that Jones is one huge lying bullshit artist out to make a buck selling vitamins and supplements on his show.
He's FAKE NEWS, Jim. He has ZERO credibility.
Modified by eDrek at Sun, Nov 05, 2017, 12:41:55
|
|
|
|
You were the one who tried to make an issue of Jones. Not me. So I just showed you how the media got caught lying about him. You don’t have the basic integrity to admit anything. It’s so obvious.
|
|
|
|
Like I said, I don't care that you showed me how Salon and Newsweek lied about Alex Jones. I'm not even going to bother digging into that at all.
The fact is that Alex Jones is obviously one big f-ing joke and you cannot be serious that you like some of what he says. The guy is indefensible.
I just threw Infowars out there just to see if you and Pat D were followers of this lunatic. And you seem to be.
Wowsers!
Aren't you the least bit embarrassed?
Modified by eDrek at Sun, Nov 05, 2017, 16:02:42
|
|
|
|
What a fool you are, Drek. You seem to have zero comprehension of the fact that people can be right about some things, wrong about others, etc. So your idiotic suggestion that I'm a "follower" of Jones because I might agree with him about this or that makes you look like a moron or someone totally disengaged intellectually. Your admission that you were trying to goad me and Pat just proves what a troll you are.
|
|
|
|
Your admission that you were trying to goad me and Pat just proves what a troll you are.
No, Jim. I was trying to suss you out. I wasn't goading you into anything. I just wanted to see what you believe in. At least Pat had the right answer.
Jim, you never change. You play the same dirty game over and over again. Call people names like moron, totally disengaged intellectually, etc.
No, dude, if you believe or even spend your time getting 'facts' from Alex Jones then you're the moron.
Modified by eDrek at Sun, Nov 05, 2017, 17:39:51
|
|
|
|
And you never will. You can't escape the superficial blather of liberal media. But if you actually cared, watch this and try -- just try -- to think for yourself for a change:
https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=obama+birth+certificate+fraud&view=detail&mid=8E846AA5F18A4E1D02AB8E846AA5F18A4E1D02AB&FORM=VIRE
Modified by Jim at Sat, Nov 04, 2017, 20:10:59
|
|
|
|
Jim, one day you, yes even you, might wake up out of your new cult and realize you were so f*cking wrong so many times. You might even feel embarrassed and you might even ask us for our forgiveness.
We're here for you, Jim. We'll wait. You're a smart guy. It will just take some time like it did when you left Maharaji.
|
|
|
|
By one tracker , he's told over 1300 lies since taking office, pretty pathetic. Jim can get some leniency, it's not easy deteriorating from increasing auditory hallucinations. You try having to block out Imams reading the Koran in your head all day.
Modified by auggie55 at Sat, Nov 04, 2017, 22:20:30
|
|
|
|
It's an hour and a half long!
The president you predicted was going to be a great president is a narcissistic madman, and the rest of the world, when they are not scared or appalled are having a good laugh. And plenty of Americans too apparently. Good for them!
|
|
|
