Posted by Tina
An hour long documentary has been produced based on the best selling book, “Clinton Cash,” by Peter Schweizer. Myra Adams provides a review and the “official trailer” to give us a peek at what to expect:
To those who would uncover the truth about the Clinton Foundation, “follow the money” seems quaint advice, considering that billions of dollars were involved — making for a scandal ten-times the size of Watergate. …
… In the most headline-making, eye-popping deal of all, the Clinton Foundation made millions while Russia gained control of over 20 percent of the U.S. uranium reserves spread across Wyoming, Texas, and Utah. This was made possible by Hillary Clinton’s State Department, which approved the deal despite its obvious potential to threaten American national security. It all adds up to an ugly conclusion: Mrs. Clinton sold out the U.S. to enrich her family to the tune of $153 million in speaking fees alone — and at least $2 billion in the coffers of their foundation.
The documentary is now in search of a distributor…watch for it later this summer and let us know if you see that it’s playing.
Two other great venues on the Clintons are Denish D’Souza’s book, “Stealing America” and his movie, coming out this summer, “Hillary’s America.” I read the book and am looking forward to the movie.
Dinesh D’Souza’s ‘America’ warns Hillary Clinton will ‘finish off’ the country:
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/dinesh-dsouzas-america-warns-hillary-clinton-will-finish-off-the-country/article/2549114
I read Clinton Ca$h when it first came out. GREAT book, and lays out a number of Clinton $henanigan$.
Only downside to reading the book was keeping the Clinton $leaze from oozing out into my lap. Will definitely go see the movie once it’s released!
Does it even occur to you to fact-check things like this? Or do you just think to yourself, “Whee, something bad about someone I don’t like! I’d better spread this rumor as soon as possible before it’s proven wrong!”
It doesn’t, which is why you get caught spreading lies so freaking often:
The author of “Clinton Cash” falsely claimed Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State had “veto power” and “could have stopped” Russia from buying a company with extensive uranium mining operations in the U.S. In fact, only the president has such power.
At the time of the sale, Clinton was a member of the Committee on Foreign Investments in the United States, which is required by law to investigate all U.S. transactions that involve a company owned or controlled by a foreign government. Federal guidelines say any one of nine voting members of the committee can object to such a foreign transaction, but the final decision then rests with the president…
Even the president cannot prohibit a transaction without “credible evidence” that the “foreign interest exercising control might take action that threatens to impair the national security,” according to the regulation.
http://www.factcheck.org/2015/04/no-veto-power-for-clinton-on-uranium-deal/
But it probably doesn’t matter; you will once again ignore the evidence, call me something like “condescending” (yeah, deservedly so) or “hall monitor” (what of it?), Pie will call me “Piss Chris,” and neither of you will provide any kind of rational counter-argument. Your other conservative readers will ignore the fact that you presented them with a lie, because they enjoy being lied to, Libby will get in a few good digs, and Dewey will say something about the Koch Brothers.
It’s all so predictable.
Of course, you could always prove me wrong and concede that Schweizer was in error. But that would require you to abandon a potential weapon against your sworn enemy, and you’re pathologically incapable of doing that.
Oops–there I go again, being condescending.
Prove me wrong. Tell the truth, and prove me wrong.
NY Post”
IB Times:
Game, set and match goes to Tina! Well done!
Fair rebuttal, Tina. Here’s why it’s wrong:
“Hillary could have chosen to be the one committee member that recommended prohibition of the transaction.”
Ok, but the fact that no one else objected means there were probably good reasons not to that had nothing to do with any donations. The quoted portion in the article makes it sound like Clinton ignored a clear a present danger from the deal because of greed:
“This was made possible by Hillary Clinton’s State Department, which approved the deal despite its obvious potential to threaten American national security”
But apparently neither any of the other eight voting members, nor the president, saw this threat as “obvious,” and none of them benefitted from it financially as far as we know. So the claim that Clinton only agreed to this deal to enrich herself doesn’t hold up when you consider that every other member also voted for the deal as well.
Obama may have been associated with the foundation behind Fact Check, but the site also criticizes Obama and Democrats all the time. That is what makes them reliable and reputable.
I have disdain for many things the Clintons have done. That doesn’t make every single claim against them true in my eyes, just as I don’t see every claim against conservative politicians I disdain as true. Heck, I’ve defended even Trump from false or unfair claims on these pages before. I’m about facts and fairness, Tina; I don’t just believe every accusation I hear.
You do make occasional concession statements, Chris, just enough to make you seem credible. But you are not fair nor do you always care about facts. You are often arrogant and condescending insisting that “facts” have been “discredited.” Your attitude in general is that you are right and others, once you’ve decided they’re racist, unethical, liars…whatever, are wrong. It’s the hall monitor syndrome and it’s incredibly off-putting.
Tina, my attitude is one of exhaustion–when I see people who should know better refuse to acknowledge facts staring them in the face, it makes me frustrated, and that’s when my condescending side comes out. You’re right that I’m more condescending to conservatives than liberals; that’s not fair. But my arguments are fair, even if my attitude isn’t. And the attitude should matter less than the argument.