Donald Trump Isn't The Only Candidate With Shady Russian Connections

[Surrealistik]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FjKM6FeM32U

It turns out #LoserDonald isn't the only 2016 presidential candidate with shady connections to Russia, the Clinton's have their fair share also. Hasan Piker of Pop Crunch breaks down Hillary and Bill Clinton's connections to Russian money. Tell us what you think in the comment section below.

Clinton is evidently little better than Trump on the matter of shady Russian ties, even assuming that Putin is running interference on the latter's behalf in this election (which has not been proven) by revealing DNC corruption in her favour and Bernie's detriment.

That said, I do like her ostensible policy towards NATO and Ukraine more than Trump's.

 

[Mycroft]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FjKM6FeM32U



Clinton is evidently little better than Trump on the matter of shady Russian ties, even assuming that Putin is running interference on the latter's behalf in this election (which has not been proven) by revealing DNC corruption in her favour and Bernie's detriment.

That said, I do like her ostensible policy towards NATO and Ukraine more than Trump's.

The media won't talk about this...Hillary won't talk about this...when Trump talks about it, he is ignored.

It's a non-story.

 

[Phys251]

 

[Top Cat]

The media won't talk about this...Hillary won't talk about this...when Trump talks about it, he is ignored.

It's a non-story.

It's a conspiracy! Tin hats for all!

 

[Surrealistik]

snip

Except all of the video's content is factual and sourced; nice try though (will be adding these to the OP later with admin assistance to preempt further silliness):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium_One

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/u...s-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html (yes, even the NYT isn't giving Hillary a pass on this one despite being egregiously pro-Hillary as a rule; I was surprised too)

Everything we know about the Hillary Clinton-Russia-Uranium 'scandal' - Business Insider (Business Insider, also traditionally friendly, defends Hillary citing that approval power in the Uranium One deal did not rest with her alone, but acknowledges virtually every other accusation, including failure to properly disclose donors)

The New Yorker's take: Five Questions About the Clintons and a Uranium Company - The New Yorker

Also the irony of citing 'X-Files' while asserting with absolute confidence that the Russian were responsible for the DNC leaks in a conspiracy to get Trump elected prior to any evidence being released whatsoever isn't at all lost on me.


If you're referring to Mycroft's comments, I wouldn't disagree that there's a general pro-Hillary media bias, but I would obviously disagree with the assertion that there's a blanket shutout with respect to this particular story.

 

[Phys251]

Except all of the video's content is factual and sourced; nice try though (will be adding these to the OP later with admin assistance to preempt further silliness):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium_One

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/u...s-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html (yes, even the NYT isn't giving Hillary a pass on this one despite being egregiously pro-Hillary as a rule; I was surprised too)

Everything we know about the Hillary Clinton-Russia-Uranium 'scandal' - Business Insider (Business Insider, also traditionally friendly, defends Hillary citing that approval power in the Uranium One deal did not rest with her alone, but acknowledges virtually every other accusation, including failure to properly disclose donors)

The New Yorker's take: Five Questions About the Clintons and a Uranium Company - The New Yorker

Also the irony of citing 'X-Files' while asserting with absolute confidence that the Russian were responsible for the DNC leaks in a conspiracy to get Trump elected prior to any evidence being released whatsoever isn't at all lost on me.


If you're referring to Mycroft's comments, I wouldn't disagree that there's a general pro-Hillary media bias, but I would obviously disagree with the assertion that there's a blanket shutout with respect to this particular story.

Alrighty, you have your next scandal de jour! Bengazi didn't work, so try the emails! The emails didn't work, so try this one!

 

[Surrealistik]

Alrighty, you have your next scandal de jour! Bengazi didn't work, so try the emails! The emails didn't work, so try this one!

Benghazi wasn't a scandal.

The e-mails were objectively a scandal, whether or not Hillary was indicted; at worst her actions were criminally negligent; at best they were simply grossly negligent per Comey and the State Department review (while outing her as a liar given direct contradictions between their findings and Clinton's earlier public statements on the matter).

Your attempt to dismiss legitimate issues with Hillary by lumping them together with manufactured controversy is as transparent as it is futile.

 

[Moot]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FjKM6FeM32U



Clinton is evidently little better than Trump on the matter of shady Russian ties, even assuming that Putin is running interference on the latter's behalf in this election (which has not been proven) by revealing DNC corruption in her favour and Bernie's detriment.

That said, I do like her ostensible policy towards NATO and Ukraine more than Trump's.

The Russian Clinton connection was debunked ages ago....


Donald Trump inaccurately suggests Clinton got paid to approve Russia uranium deal | PolitiFact

No ‘Veto Power’ for Clinton on Uranium Deal

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinton_Foundation#Transparency

 

[Phys251]

Benghazi wasn't a scandal.

Good, glad you accept this.

The e-mails were objectively a scandal, whether or not Hillary was indicted; at worst her actions were criminally negligent; at best they were simply grossly negligent per Comey and the State Department review (while outing her as a liar given direct contradictions between their findings and Clinton's earlier public statements on the matter).

Welp, the rationality didn't last long.

Your attempt to dismiss legitimate issues with Hillary by lumping them together with manufactured controversy is as transparent as it is futile.

The boys have cried wolf so many times that we've pretty well got their howl nailed down.

 

[Phys251]

The Russian Clinton connection was debunked ages ago....


Donald Trump inaccurately suggests Clinton got paid to approve Russia uranium deal | PolitiFact

No ‘Veto Power’ for Clinton on Uranium Deal

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinton_Foundation#Transparency

Try not to confuse him with facts. A spoon-fed narrative counts for more.

 

[Mycroft]

Except all of the video's content is factual and sourced; nice try though (will be adding these to the OP later with admin assistance to preempt further silliness):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium_One

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/u...s-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html (yes, even the NYT isn't giving Hillary a pass on this one despite being egregiously pro-Hillary as a rule; I was surprised too)

Everything we know about the Hillary Clinton-Russia-Uranium 'scandal' - Business Insider (Business Insider, also traditionally friendly, defends Hillary citing that approval power in the Uranium One deal did not rest with her alone, but acknowledges virtually every other accusation, including failure to properly disclose donors)

The New Yorker's take: Five Questions About the Clintons and a Uranium Company - The New Yorker

Also the irony of citing 'X-Files' while asserting with absolute confidence that the Russian were responsible for the DNC leaks in a conspiracy to get Trump elected prior to any evidence being released whatsoever isn't at all lost on me.


If you're referring to Mycroft's comments, I wouldn't disagree that there's a general pro-Hillary media bias, but I would obviously disagree with the assertion that there's a blanket shutout with respect to this particular story.

All of your links are from April. It's now August.

Yes, it was nice that this issue was talked about back then, but it's been ignored since. The blanket shutout is full speed now, when it matters most to Hillary.

Now, it is possible...maybe even very probable...that Trump is going to raise this issue soon. If he does, it might cause Hillary some momentary discomfort but I expect that she already has her talking points lined up. We'll see.

In any case, I guess I shouldn't have called this a non-story. We can have fun discussing it here, for sure.

 

[Surrealistik]

The Russian Clinton connection was debunked ages ago....


Donald Trump inaccurately suggests Clinton got paid to approve Russia uranium deal | PolitiFact

No ‘Veto Power’ for Clinton on Uranium Deal

You're confusing a Trump claim with the article and video content I've just posted which is much more nuanced, and which involves multiple allegations.

The question of veto power or Clinton's explicit influence over the Uranium One acquisition is a singular aspect; I agree that this specific accusation probably cannot be proven, but everything else follows (for example, undisclosed donations).

Welp, the rationality didn't last long.

What is irrational about citing what the State Department and Comey _both_ literally said about Clinton and her e-mail server, and the fact that their scathing assessment of her egregiously bad judgement and protocol violation, alongside the justified controversy qualifies the e-mail issue as a scandal? About the uncontestable fact that she did indeed lie to the public about her e-mails per their findings?

The boys have cried wolf so many times that we've pretty well got their howl nailed down.

There is no 'wolf' in the provable implications of the e-mail scandal, or this one.

Try not to confuse him with facts. A spoon-fed narrative counts for more.

What facts? You mean a refutation of a specific claim made by Trump that the cited articles and video are not concerned with (though they are couched in the same source material)? You mean factcheck's singular review of the veto claim? The Uranium One issue is concerned with far more than that. And what spoon-fed narrative? Even traditionally pro-Clinton publications acknowledge the merit of several of the claims and observations made in the video.

 

[Moderate Right]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FjKM6FeM32U



Clinton is evidently little better than Trump on the matter of shady Russian ties, even assuming that Putin is running interference on the latter's behalf in this election (which has not been proven) by revealing DNC corruption in her favour and Bernie's detriment.

That said, I do like her ostensible policy towards NATO and Ukraine more than Trump's.

Clinton's (or is that Clintons') whole lives are filled with shady characters.

 

[Phys251]

See, when you talk like this:

You're confusing a Trump claim with the article and video content I've just posted which is much more nuanced, and which involves multiple allegations.

The question of veto power or Clinton's explicit influence over the Uranium One acquisition is a singular aspect; I agree that this specific accusation probably cannot be proven, but everything else follows (for example, undisclosed donations).




What is irrational about citing what the State Department and Comey _both_ literally said about Clinton and her e-mail server, and the fact that their scathing assessment of her egregiously bad judgement and protocol violation, alongside the justified controversy qualifies the e-mail issue as a scandal? About the uncontestable fact that she did indeed lie to the public about her e-mails per their findings?



There is no 'wolf' in the provable implications of the e-mail scandal, or this one.



What facts? You mean a refutation of a specific claim made by Trump that the cited articles and video are not concerned with (though they are couched in the same source material)? You mean factcheck's singular review of the veto claim? The Uranium One issue is concerned with far more than that. And what spoon-fed narrative? Even traditionally pro-Clinton publications acknowledge the merit of several of the claims and observations made in the video.

I hear this:

 

[Surrealistik]

See, when you talk like this:



I hear this:

You hear that whenever anyone says anything critical about Clinton because you're apparently a shameless partisan hack.