Allegations of a "quid pro quo" deal giving Russia ownership of one-fifth of U.S. uranium deposits in exchange for $145 million in donations to the Clinton Foundation are unsubstantiated.

Snopes rated as false but look how many times that is parroted on here.


http://www.snopes.com/hillary-clinton-ur...ssia-deal/

(04-24-2017 09:24 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Allegations of a "quid pro quo" deal giving Russia ownership of one-fifth of U.S. uranium deposits in exchange for $145 million in donations to the Clinton Foundation are unsubstantiated.

Snopes rated as false but look how many times that is parroted on here.


http://www.snopes.com/hillary-clinton-ur...ssia-deal/

Slow news day Mach? What happened to buckle up?

Is this the same snopes that said it was mostly true that Syria had no chemical weapons due to Kerry and Rice's negotiations?

The dark force is strong in this one,

This is why when you guys post something it's not from a credible site. My God follow the Alex Jones trial. He's following a script and playing a role. You are immersed in fake news. How many times have we heard this zombie lie on here?

(04-24-2017 09:59 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  This is why when you guys post something it's not from a credible site. My God follow the Alex Jones trial. He's following a script and playing a role. You are immersed in fake news. How many times have we heard this zombie lie on here?

So are there chemical weapons in Syria or not?

(04-24-2017 09:59 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  This is why when you guys post something it's not from a credible site.

Snopes most certainly has a political bent Mach....

(04-24-2017 09:24 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Allegations of a "quid pro quo" deal giving Russia ownership of one-fifth of U.S. uranium deposits in exchange for $145 million in donations to the Clinton Foundation are unsubstantiated.

Snopes rated as false but look how many times that is parroted on here.


http://www.snopes.com/hillary-clinton-ur...ssia-deal/

You guys act like snopes and fact check are godly beings. Really it is laughable.

(04-24-2017 09:24 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Allegations of a "quid pro quo" deal giving Russia ownership of one-fifth of U.S. uranium deposits in exchange for $145 million in donations to the Clinton Foundation are unsubstantiated.

Snopes rated as false but look how many times that is parroted on here.


http://www.snopes.com/hillary-clinton-ur...ssia-deal/

Do you even read the stuff you post? Or do you just read the headline?

It basically supports all the allegations against Clinton. It simply, in a Clintonesque manner, (what do you mean by "is") says she didn't single-handedly approve the deal. The only thing it raises questions about is the former owner's giant $100 million contribution, as to whether that constituted influence since he sold his shares.

This sort of stuff is why "fact check" is such a joke.

This article quotes some of your favorites like NYT and Vox:
https://counterpropa.com/yes-cash-flowed...nium-deal/

(04-24-2017 09:59 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  This is why when you guys post something it's not from a credible site. My God follow the Alex Jones trial. He's following a script and playing a role. You are immersed in fake news. How many times have we heard this zombie lie on here?

Snopes repeated it. You just didn't read the article-or understand it.

(04-24-2017 09:24 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Allegations of a "quid pro quo" deal giving Russia ownership of one-fifth of U.S. uranium deposits in exchange for $145 million in donations to the Clinton Foundation are unsubstantiated.

Snopes rated as false but look how many times that is parroted on here.


http://www.snopes.com/hillary-clinton-ur...ssia-deal/

Cant stop thinking about her huh?

Well, Snopes said it so it HAS to be true--right?

Snopes didn't say what they are trying to get you to believe.

They didn't debunk, they spun.

(04-24-2017 09:59 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  This is why when you guys post something it's not from a credible site. My God follow the Alex Jones trial. He's following a script and playing a role. You are immersed in fake news. How many times have we heard this zombie lie on here?

Could you list a handful of sites you consider to be "credible"? Not flaming, just genuinely interested.

Mach,

I suggest you read up on the topic.

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/ca...mpany.html

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015...stors.html

(04-25-2017 09:52 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  Mach,

I suggest you read up on the topic.

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/ca...mpany.html

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015...stors.html

He doesn't even read his own articles critically, just the headlines.

(04-25-2017 10:32 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(04-25-2017 09:52 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  Mach,

I suggest you read up on the topic.

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/ca...mpany.html

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015...stors.html

He doesn't even read his own articles critically, just the headlines.