What's new
Mastiff Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • Welcome back!

    We decided to spruce things up and fix some things under the hood. If you notice any issues, feel free to contact us as we're sure there are a few things here or there that we might have missed in our upgrade.

FAKE NEWS!

Status
Not open for further replies.

Bailey's Mom

Super Moderator
Super Moderator
I will review your considered points, and I will investigate them for accuracy. As it is a long laundry list, it will take some time.
 

Boxergirl

Well-Known Member
I will review your considered points, and I will investigate them for accuracy. As it is a long laundry list, it will take some time.

I have to give you credit for managing to make it through that, Bailey's Mom. Lol.

Sorry Marke. I am interested in your remarks, but I simply can't read the post as it is. My eyes are older than the rest of me and the wall of text is just too difficult to decipher. I wonder if you can make actual paragraphs instead of using ellipses? It's just so hard to read your posts sometimes.
 

marke

Well-Known Member
sorry , I know exactly what you mean ..... writing is not a skill I'm good at , at all , but I spell pretty good , just think if I didn't ......... best if I just keep my stuff real short
 

Boxergirl

Well-Known Member
sorry , I know exactly what you mean ..... writing is not a skill I'm good at , at all , but I spell pretty good , just think if I didn't ......... best if I just keep my stuff real short

Naw, don't keep it short. Just put some spaces in. How can I disagree with you if I can't read your post? Hahaha. Kidding. Just kidding.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nik

Bailey's Mom

Super Moderator
Super Moderator
I have to give you credit for managing to make it through that, Bailey's Mom. Lol.

Sorry Marke. I am interested in your remarks, but I simply can't read the post as it is. My eyes are older than the rest of me and the wall of text is just too difficult to decipher. I wonder if you can make actual paragraphs instead of using ellipses? It's just so hard to read your posts sometimes.

We'll...it is a wall of words, but I'll chew through it in time. For brevity, I'll treat it to the spoon technique, as in, "How do you eat an elephant? One spoonful at a time."
So, I'll dismantle it and address each point individually. Unfortunately, I'm intending to enjoy the weekend, St. Paddy's day! - I'm half Irish, three generations in country - still get a kick out of hoisting a few, so, my response will be delayed by intoxication, probably followed by, regret and a huge hangover. I'm sure politics will wait, and, anyway, I'm
waiting for the other shoe to drop.... See you soon!
 

Bailey's Mom

Super Moderator
Super Moderator
Sorry I have been taking so long, but, I quite enjoyed my weekend and, as I noted, I was waiting for the other shoe to drop. So here we are, and the FBI director Comey gave testimony that after a thorough search of both the FBI files and the Department of Justice files found absolutely no foundation for the president's tweets. NONE, he was grilled over and over again and the question was put to him in a multitude of ways, but, again and again, Comey was quite even and forthcoming that the FBI and the Department of Justice have no information that would support the President's assertion. So, let's start there.

Today after the evidence was given by Comey, the President went to twitter, once again, to continue HIS FAKE NEWS. The answer has hit him in the face, he has been exposed for an outright lie, and he is still trying to assert that he
, is the victim of other's "Fake News." The problem is HE IS EXPOSED. No sense sugar coating it, he lied, and he lied to stir people up and cause political and civil unrest and to throw off the scent of the hounds hunting down the Russian connection.

So, the Russian connection, what basis is there to believe that anyone in the Trump campaign prior to his election, had anything to do with Russian operatives/agents/diplomatic staff? Back to Comey's testimony today to find out. Yes, there is an ongoing investigation into the Trump team regarding possible collusion with the Russians in an attempt to help Trump win the presidency by undermining Hilary Clinton's campaign. There is no evidence of election machine tampering...NONE, at this point. However, there is a lot of evidence of contact between Trump staff and consular officials, and there is more...there is an active and ongoing investigation that started back before October and the subjects that are being investigated in regards to this situation the FBI will not expose because it is an active and sensitive investigation. Comey sought and got permission from the Department of Justice (Sessions) to reveal the fact of this investigation. Everybody seemed to know about it, but this was official acknowledgment that an investigation was active and had been since before October.

Comey was asked about Trump's tweet assertion that this "wire tapping" was the same as "Nixon" situation or "McCarthyism." Director Comey was asked to explain what the Nixon/Watergate story was about because many of the people watching were probably too young to remember the story. Comey said, well, I was just a boy myself at the time, but I remember it and I've studied it since then extensively. At its basis there were illegal wire taps and a break in that were ordered by Nixon, and then there was a cover-up that was ordered by Nixon. Comey said more, but...let's leave it there.

There was more, but, what I remember from that time was the press having a field day and then there were other people that lied under oath to cover up the cover-up and to protect Nixon...then themselves. I remember the exposure of the Nixon tapes. Nixon had an enemy's list. His own personal tapes were filled with references to getting even with this person or that person.... Remind you of anyone?

*********

FAKE NEWS! We are talking about Fake News, and we are talking about how devastating it can be to a country and its people.

********


NOW: The Russians and Clinton, i.e., the "payoff." This is the Great Lie of Uranium One. Since all newspapers, according to you, are "Fake News."

A simple Google search tells you just how much press this story got. It was everywhere, reported and argued over by every major news purveyor and all the information, in time, was brought out. Did Hilary Clinton make a deal with the devil? Well, let's look at Snopes and find out. Snopes debunks bull and puts the light on the truth. If you don't trust the press, go to the fact checking web sites. http://www.snopes.com/hillary-clinton-uranium-russia-deal/

Her involvement was zippy do dah, nada. Her State department rubber stamped a deal that had been thoroughly vetted by 9...nine...NINE agencies. You stated the following, which I have copied over from this thread so that we can do a fair comparison.

"As the Russians gradually assumed control of Uranium One in three separate transactions from 2009 to 2013, Canadian records show, a flow of cash made its way to the Clinton Foundation. Uranium One’s chairman used his family foundation to make four donations totaling $2.35 million. Those contributions were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons, despite an agreement Mrs. Clinton had struck with the Obama White House to publicly identify all donors. Other people with ties to the company made donations as well." how many times during the campaign did the other reputable news sources bring up the Clinton foundation and the Russian uranium deal ?????????

This following piece comes from the Snopes site listed above:

"The Uranium One deal was not Clinton’s to veto or approve

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 the transaction 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. According to The New York Times, Clinton may not have even directly participated in the Uranium One decision. Then-Assistant Secretary of State Jose Fernandez, whose job it was to represent the State Dept. on CFIUS, said Clinton herself “never intervened” in committee matters.

The timing of most of the donations does not match

Of the $145 million allegedly contributed to the Clinton Foundation by Uranium One investors, the lion’s share — $131.3 million — came from a single donor, Frank Giustra, the company’s founder. But Giustra sold off his entire stake in the company in 2007, three years before the Russia deal and at least 18 months before Clinton became secretary of state.

Of the remaining individuals connected with Uranium One who donated to the Clinton Foundation, only one was found to have contributed during the same time frame that the deal was taking place, accordingto The New York Times — Ian Telfer, the company’s chairman:

His donations through the Fernwood Foundation included $1 million reported in 2009, the year his company appealed to the American Embassy to help it keep its mines in Kazakhstan; $250,000 in 2010, the year the Russians sought majority control; as well as $600,000 in 2011 and $500,000 in 2012. Mr. Telfer said that his donations had nothing to do with his business dealings, and that he had never discussed Uranium One with Mr. or Mrs. Clinton. He said he had given the money because he wanted to support Mr. Giustra’s charitable endeavors with Mr. Clinton. “Frank and I have been friends and business partners for almost 20 years,” he said.

The timing of Telfer’s donations 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.

Foundation admits disclosure mistakes

One fault investigations into the Clinton Foundation’s practices did find was that not all of the donations were properly disclosed — specifically, those of Uranium One Chairman Ian Telfer between 2009 and 2012. The foundation admitted this shortcoming and pledged to correct it, but as the Guardian pointed out in its May 2015 discussion of Clinton Cash, the fact that it happened is reason enough to sound alarm bells:

It is also true that large donations to the foundation from the chairman of Uranium One, Ian Telfer, at around the time of the Russian purchase of the company and while Hillary Clinton was secretary of state, were never disclosed to the public. The multimillion sums were channeled through a subsidiary of the Clinton Foundation, CGSCI, which did not reveal its individual donors.

Such awkward collisions between Bill’s fundraising activities and Hillary’s public service have raised concerns not just among those who might be dismissed as part of a vast right-wing conspiracy.

An enormous volume of interest and speculation surrounds the workings of the Clinton Foundation, which is to be expected. Given the enormous sums of money it controls and the fact that it is run by a former U.S. president who is married to a possible future U.S. president, the foundation deserves all the scrutiny it gets, and more.

At the same time, for the sake of accuracy it’s crucial to differentiate between partisan accusations and what we actually know about it — however little that may be."

I was shocked today to hear Sean Spicer drag up this old lie to again try to throw the light off Trump's behaviour. It's always someone else's fault in their world.

********

LOOK, this could go on forever. A great deal of your stated concern above surrounds the "Russian" issue. But, I am hoping that today you have cause for sober reflection. Today, clearly, unequivocally, the FBI, and through them, the Justice Department, have made it clear that there were dealings between the Trump camp and the Russians. People are being investigated within the Trump group. It isn't "if", it is "when" the indictments fall. We don't know which of his people are being investigated, BUT WE DO KNOW THAT THEY ARE BEING INVESTIGATED.

As for your concern about the "whistle blower", well, it is a crime to release sensitive information to the public. It is in a country's best interest to have its secrets held tight, otherwise the security of the nation is in peril. But, at times, it takes a whistle blower to save a nation from itself. Deep Throat, the whistle blower of the Nixon/Watergate scandal was an FBI agent...to my knowledge, he was never punished for his role in exposing Nixon's illegal activities. Indeed no one knew who he was until 2005. But because of him and the work of Woodward and Bernstein, it became imperative to limit the powers accorded to a president. No president since Nixon has had the power to order wire taps or surveillance. Trump's allegations are patently false. Perhaps history will record this "whistle blower" as a patriot. I hope his/her reasons for sharing this information were from their love of country and not from any party ideology.
 

Nik

Well-Known Member
Sorry I have been taking so long, but, I quite enjoyed my weekend and, as I noted, I was waiting for the other shoe to drop. So here we are, and the FBI director Comey gave testimony that after a thorough search of both the FBI files and the Department of Justice files found absolutely no foundation for the president's tweets. NONE, he was grilled over and over again and the question was put to him in a multitude of ways, but, again and again, Comey was quite even and forthcoming that the FBI and the Department of Justice have no information that would support the President's assertion. So, let's start there.

Today after the evidence was given by Comey, the President went to twitter, once again, to continue HIS FAKE NEWS. The answer has hit him in the face, he has been exposed for an outright lie, and he is still trying to assert that he
, is the victim of other's "Fake News." The problem is HE IS EXPOSED. No sense sugar coating it, he lied, and he lied to stir people up and cause political and civil unrest and to throw off the scent of the hounds hunting down the Russian connection.

So, the Russian connection, what basis is there to believe that anyone in the Trump campaign prior to his election, had anything to do with Russian operatives/agents/diplomatic staff? Back to Comey's testimony today to find out. Yes, there is an ongoing investigation into the Trump team regarding possible collusion with the Russians in an attempt to help Trump win the presidency by undermining Hilary Clinton's campaign. There is no evidence of election machine tampering...NONE, at this point. However, there is a lot of evidence of contact between Trump staff and consular officials, and there is more...there is an active and ongoing investigation that started back before October and the subjects that are being investigated in regards to this situation the FBI will not expose because it is an active and sensitive investigation. Comey sought and got permission from the Department of Justice (Sessions) to reveal the fact of this investigation. Everybody seemed to know about it, but this was official acknowledgment that an investigation was active and had been since before October.

Comey was asked about Trump's tweet assertion that this "wire tapping" was the same as "Nixon" situation or "McCarthyism." Director Comey was asked to explain what the Nixon/Watergate story was about because many of the people watching were probably too young to remember the story. Comey said, well, I was just a boy myself at the time, but I remember it and I've studied it since then extensively. At its basis there were illegal wire taps and a break in that were ordered by Nixon, and then there was a cover-up that was ordered by Nixon. Comey said more, but...let's leave it there.

There was more, but, what I remember from that time was the press having a field day and then there were other people that lied under oath to cover up the cover-up and to protect Nixon...then themselves. I remember the exposure of the Nixon tapes. Nixon had an enemy's list. His own personal tapes were filled with references to getting even with this person or that person.... Remind you of anyone?

*********

FAKE NEWS! We are talking about Fake News, and we are talking about how devastating it can be to a country and its people.

********


NOW: The Russians and Clinton, i.e., the "payoff." This is the Great Lie of Uranium One. Since all newspapers, according to you, are "Fake News."

A simple Google search tells you just how much press this story got. It was everywhere, reported and argued over by every major news purveyor and all the information, in time, was brought out. Did Hilary Clinton make a deal with the devil? Well, let's look at Snopes and find out. Snopes debunks bull and puts the light on the truth. If you don't trust the press, go to the fact checking web sites. http://www.snopes.com/hillary-clinton-uranium-russia-deal/

Her involvement was zippy do dah, nada. Her State department rubber stamped a deal that had been thoroughly vetted by 9...nine...NINE agencies. You stated the following, which I have copied over from this thread so that we can do a fair comparison.

"As the Russians gradually assumed control of Uranium One in three separate transactions from 2009 to 2013, Canadian records show, a flow of cash made its way to the Clinton Foundation. Uranium One’s chairman used his family foundation to make four donations totaling $2.35 million. Those contributions were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons, despite an agreement Mrs. Clinton had struck with the Obama White House to publicly identify all donors. Other people with ties to the company made donations as well." how many times during the campaign did the other reputable news sources bring up the Clinton foundation and the Russian uranium deal ?????????

This following piece comes from the Snopes site listed above:

"The Uranium One deal was not Clinton’s to veto or approve

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 the transaction 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. According to The New York Times, Clinton may not have even directly participated in the Uranium One decision. Then-Assistant Secretary of State Jose Fernandez, whose job it was to represent the State Dept. on CFIUS, said Clinton herself “never intervened” in committee matters.

The timing of most of the donations does not match

Of the $145 million allegedly contributed to the Clinton Foundation by Uranium One investors, the lion’s share — $131.3 million — came from a single donor, Frank Giustra, the company’s founder. But Giustra sold off his entire stake in the company in 2007, three years before the Russia deal and at least 18 months before Clinton became secretary of state.

Of the remaining individuals connected with Uranium One who donated to the Clinton Foundation, only one was found to have contributed during the same time frame that the deal was taking place, accordingto The New York Times — Ian Telfer, the company’s chairman:

His donations through the Fernwood Foundation included $1 million reported in 2009, the year his company appealed to the American Embassy to help it keep its mines in Kazakhstan; $250,000 in 2010, the year the Russians sought majority control; as well as $600,000 in 2011 and $500,000 in 2012. Mr. Telfer said that his donations had nothing to do with his business dealings, and that he had never discussed Uranium One with Mr. or Mrs. Clinton. He said he had given the money because he wanted to support Mr. Giustra’s charitable endeavors with Mr. Clinton. “Frank and I have been friends and business partners for almost 20 years,” he said.

The timing of Telfer’s donations 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.

Foundation admits disclosure mistakes

One fault investigations into the Clinton Foundation’s practices did find was that not all of the donations were properly disclosed — specifically, those of Uranium One Chairman Ian Telfer between 2009 and 2012. The foundation admitted this shortcoming and pledged to correct it, but as the Guardian pointed out in its May 2015 discussion of Clinton Cash, the fact that it happened is reason enough to sound alarm bells:

It is also true that large donations to the foundation from the chairman of Uranium One, Ian Telfer, at around the time of the Russian purchase of the company and while Hillary Clinton was secretary of state, were never disclosed to the public. The multimillion sums were channeled through a subsidiary of the Clinton Foundation, CGSCI, which did not reveal its individual donors.

Such awkward collisions between Bill’s fundraising activities and Hillary’s public service have raised concerns not just among those who might be dismissed as part of a vast right-wing conspiracy.

An enormous volume of interest and speculation surrounds the workings of the Clinton Foundation, which is to be expected. Given the enormous sums of money it controls and the fact that it is run by a former U.S. president who is married to a possible future U.S. president, the foundation deserves all the scrutiny it gets, and more.

At the same time, for the sake of accuracy it’s crucial to differentiate between partisan accusations and what we actually know about it — however little that may be."

I was shocked today to hear Sean Spicer drag up this old lie to again try to throw the light off Trump's behaviour. It's always someone else's fault in their world.

********

LOOK, this could go on forever. A great deal of your stated concern above surrounds the "Russian" issue. But, I am hoping that today you have cause for sober reflection. Today, clearly, unequivocally, the FBI, and through them, the Justice Department, have made it clear that there were dealings between the Trump camp and the Russians. People are being investigated within the Trump group. It isn't "if", it is "when" the indictments fall. We don't know which of his people are being investigated, BUT WE DO KNOW THAT THEY ARE BEING INVESTIGATED.

As for your concern about the "whistle blower", well, it is a crime to release sensitive information to the public. It is in a country's best interest to have its secrets held tight, otherwise the security of the nation is in peril. But, at times, it takes a whistle blower to save a nation from itself. Deep Throat, the whistle blower of the Nixon/Watergate scandal was an FBI agent...to my knowledge, he was never punished for his role in exposing Nixon's illegal activities. Indeed no one knew who he was until 2005. But because of him and the work of Woodward and Bernstein, it became imperative to limit the powers accorded to a president. No president since Nixon has had the power to order wire taps or surveillance. Trump's allegations are patently false. Perhaps history will record this "whistle blower" as a patriot. I hope his/her reasons for sharing this information were from their love of country and not from any party ideology.


You have far more patience than I with this political stuff. During the election I looked into each of the allegations against Clinton as they came up. All the various rumors that the right wing pundits were spreading like wild fire. Heck I even went to a presentation by a security advisor of the United States who had been working for our country under two different presidents (W and Obama). I don't have the patience to address each thing that was thrown Clinton's way. I don't have the patience to dig up and share sources.

The information is out there and it isn't that hard to separate fact from fiction. There are fact checking sites. There are even sites that rate the truthfulness of various news sources and list their inherent biases. We have so many tools at our disposal as a society for making intelligent informed decisions. I just don't have the patience to spoon feed it to anyone else.

I reserve all my patience for my dogs and my husband which is a far more rewarding since political discussions (even with evidence and sources) never seem to go anywhere. Most people who hold strong ideological, political or religious beliefs will not ever change their minds regardless of evidence that may support the opposing view. It just saddens me and frustrates me to make the effort and see no result. As I said , I have no patience.

But, it does break my heart to see a powerful woman who worked so hard to get ahead in a very patriarchal world stacked against her only be defeated by lies and half truths skewed so far they are no longer truths at all. I was conflicted in the primaries between Bernie and Hillary. But, it wasn't because of any of the lies or rumors. It was purely based on policy. Because I vote based on track record, policy, and plans. Bernie had a few policies that were near and dear to my heart that I thought were superior to some of the policies that Hillary had. However, Hillary's plans and policies were more fiscally sound and would have the best impact on my taxes. I easily could have gone either way and part of me hoped they would end up running together and combine their plans and policies to make something even better.

All that said I was not surprised at all that Hillary lost the general election. I wasn't surprised that she was completely demonized by the press and by public opinion. I predicted this years ago when I taught sociology in college. I remember telling my students back in 2001 (during the W. years) that our society was deeply patriarchal and deeply sexist and that yes we were racist as well. But, we were more sexist than racist. I predicted we would see a black male president long before a female president in part because inherent racism was a dirty secret and not considered okay or acceptable whereas a lot of sexist views are considered totally okay and correct. That's why you hear women and men interviewed in news segments saying a woman can't be trusted to be president because what about when she is on her period and you can't trust such an important position to somebody ruled by their emotions like a woman would be. It makes me cringe even as I type it that there are still people with these sorts of views. That those sorts of views are mainstream enough that they can be spoken out loud without shame. So ya I wasn't surprised. Because I don't have faith in the masses. Sadly I do feel that our country has become more racist as well as more sexist in part because of Trump. He is a public figure in a powerful and respected position who has normalized some of the uglier feelings and sentiments out there.

So this is the reality we are stuck with for the moment. I can only hope that the damage done isn't too great while we ride this one out. Of course that hope is seeming more and more futile with every new decision, every new proposed bill, every new committee election. Lets hope the next guy is able to clean up whatever mess is left behind. And yes I said guy because I doubt we will manage a woman president even in four or eight years. Clearly we aren't enlightened enough for that.
 

Bailey's Mom

Super Moderator
Super Moderator
You have far more patience than I with this political stuff. During the election I looked into each of the allegations against Clinton as they came up. All the various rumors that the right wing pundits were spreading like wild fire. Heck I even went to a presentation by a security advisor of the United States who had been working for our country under two different presidents (W and Obama). I don't have the patience to address each thing that was thrown Clinton's way. I don't have the patience to dig up and share sources.

The information is out there and it isn't that hard to separate fact from fiction. There are fact checking sites. There are even sites that rate the truthfulness of various news sources and list their inherent biases. We have so many tools at our disposal as a society for making intelligent informed decisions. I just don't have the patience to spoon feed it to anyone else.

I reserve all my patience for my dogs and my husband which is a far more rewarding since political discussions (even with evidence and sources) never seem to go anywhere. Most people who hold strong ideological, political or religious beliefs will not ever change their minds regardless of evidence that may support the opposing view. It just saddens me and frustrates me to make the effort and see no result. As I said , I have no patience.

But, it does break my heart to see a powerful woman who worked so hard to get ahead in a very patriarchal world stacked against her only be defeated by lies and half truths skewed so far they are no longer truths at all. I was conflicted in the primaries between Bernie and Hillary. But, it wasn't because of any of the lies or rumors. It was purely based on policy. Because I vote based on track record, policy, and plans. Bernie had a few policies that were near and dear to my heart that I thought were superior to some of the policies that Hillary had. However, Hillary's plans and policies were more fiscally sound and would have the best impact on my taxes. I easily could have gone either way and part of me hoped they would end up running together and combine their plans and policies to make something even better.

All that said I was not surprised at all that Hillary lost the general election. I wasn't surprised that she was completely demonized by the press and by public opinion. I predicted this years ago when I taught sociology in college. I remember telling my students back in 2001 (during the W. years) that our society was deeply patriarchal and deeply sexist and that yes we were racist as well. But, we were more sexist than racist. I predicted we would see a black male president long before a female president in part because inherent racism was a dirty secret and not considered okay or acceptable whereas a lot of sexist views are considered totally okay and correct. That's why you hear women and men interviewed in news segments saying a woman can't be trusted to be president because what about when she is on her period and you can't trust such an important position to somebody ruled by their emotions like a woman would be. It makes me cringe even as I type it that there are still people with these sorts of views. That those sorts of views are mainstream enough that they can be spoken out loud without shame. So ya I wasn't surprised. Because I don't have faith in the masses. Sadly I do feel that our country has become more racist as well as more sexist in part because of Trump. He is a public figure in a powerful and respected position who has normalized some of the uglier feelings and sentiments out there.

So this is the reality we are stuck with for the moment. I can only hope that the damage done isn't too great while we ride this one out. Of course that hope is seeming more and more futile with every new decision, every new proposed bill, every new committee election. Lets hope the next guy is able to clean up whatever mess is left behind. And yes I said guy because I doubt we will manage a woman president even in four or eight years. Clearly we aren't enlightened enough for that.

Nik, I too believed that Hillary was unlikely to succeed because of sexism. Oh, I hoped, but didn't it have the feeling like you were holding your breath because at any minute some men would come in and sweep her off the stage? AND, they did.

I guess we could say, hey, at least it took several billionaires, a foreign government, Wikileaks, and the vicious right owned news and entertainment sources for them to lose The Popular Vote.... So, we're coming up in the world!!!

I did laugh early on when Hillary lost to Obama, a black man...So, predictable...even a black man was preferable to a woman. Now, Obama was a well respected leader on the world stage, and he had the good sense to elevate Clinton to the State Department. In a sense, he gave her her training wheels. He legitimized her in a way that he never himself needed to be legitimized. And still, having worked harder and longer than any man in power today, having out classed, and mentally out gunned these lesser males, at the finish line they took the prize from her using dirty tricks.

Let's watch...The Fake News machine is alive and unfortunately well. Even while Comey was testifying Trump was tweeting, spinning (probably raging.)

Stayed tuned folks....it's going to be a bumpy ride.
 

marke

Well-Known Member

Did you watch the hearing with comey or did you see it on the news ? it was not about questioning comey , it was about disseminating the democratic narrative/opinion , and then asking him “what do you think ? “ , to which he’d answer “I’m not going to talk about that” , or ,” all I know is what I’ve read in the media , not to offend anyone but a lot of the medias classified information is false” , and “ it’s not the fbi’s job to correct false news ” … another interesting thought was “is leaking false classified information a crime ? “. Did he actually answer any of the democratic senators questions ???did they even ask any questions ???????? I personally came away knowing what I did before I ever watched it , I did find it interesting though…….. as for watergate , none of the U.S. intelligence agencies would have had any evidence of those wiretaps either ………. their answers would have been identical to comeys had not a janitor noticed the lock on the garage door , and money not been exchanged . except for that you nor anyone else would have ever heard of watergate ………..


Snopes ???? It’d be worse than me referencing a brietbart story for you .......... this is one of many i've seen , one more than I would waste my time looking for


SNOPES:
Claim: Hillary Clinton successfully defended an accused child rapist and later laughed about the case.


MOSTLY FALSE
WHAT’S TRUE: In 1975, young lawyer Hillary Rodham was appointed to represent a defendant charged with raping a 12-year-old girl. Clinton reluctantly took on the case, which ended with a plea bargain for the defendant.


WHAT’S FALSE: Hillary Clinton did not volunteer to be the defendant’s lawyer, she did not laugh about the the case’s outcome, she did not assert that the complainant “made up the rape story,” she did not claim she knew the defendant to be guilty, and she did not “free” the defendant.


best I can tell she did volunteer , she did find it amusing , she did know the guy was guilty , and she sure feels she did get him off ...........snopes should snope themselves ???? to give them credit they weren't totally wrong , she did know the little girl didn't make up the story .........



I think uranium sales to Russia would require something more than a rubber stamp , at least you’d hope , actually I know it does …. for you to know how this process works , and to add to that the federal laws written specifically for the sale of uranium to Russia , to claim Clinton had nothing to do with it , or had no knowledge of the U.S. selling PUTIN/DR.EVIL uranium , don't you find that more than a little hard to believe , hell , I don’t believe obama didn’t know about it …. this was just a few years ago , what do think would be said if trump sold Russia this amount of US uranium ?

would the jose Fernandez your talking about be same jose Fernandez who approached podesta for a job in the hacked wikileaks e-mails ???? oh , and as far the russia connections , we can’t overlook the Podesta Group , the lobbying firm , and who they have lobbied for , that info is public at opensecrets.org ………………… ian telfer , I guess they figure if they deny them all they'll look stupid ……… guistra’s 31 million in donations was 2006 , the Russian sale was began in 2008 , but the donation was made after giustra had gone to Kazakhstan with bill Clinton to meet with the Kazakhstan dictator/ Russian proxy , to acquire their uranium mines for urasia , as far as Clinton having nothing to do with the sale , I’d wonder why he was there then ?maybe he just needed a nice vacation on the Kazakhstan Riviera with a soviet dictator human rights violator ……… I believe snopes said giustra divested himself of urasia , and made it seem as though he “sold off” any interest in urasia at the time of sale to uranium one ??? I think you’ll find he stayed on as a financial consultant and retained an interest in the company up until sold to the rostratum………… to delve into the deal would involve one of my walls of text , it’d be like stage 4 cancer , to follow it leads everywhere ………..i heard the Clinton foundation is shutting down ? that’s odd , such a lucrative business that has done so many good things , I wonder what happened ……… probably they’re just hoping folks forget about it , mostly the fbi folks ……


Whistleblower , these are political lackey's, nothing patriotic about this one , these are political leaks for political purposes , made by political appointees solely in the interest of a political party ….. if you think that what is going on here is a good thing , we’ll agree to disagree ……… do you find it a good thing that a political appointee who has no access to international , national or local intelligence can override the executive branch of government on matters of national security ? I assure you the “Russian ties” to American politics are deeper and further reaching on the democratic side of the isle than all of trumps campaign staff , cabinet , businesses , family and friends ……..

Hillary studied alinsky’s ideology in college , obama wrote about frank davis in his book “dreams of my father” …both legitimate ideological mentors to a young Clinton and obama … those guys political affiliations are beyond questions , they broadcast them……. Axelrods father was a member of the communist party ……… substitute trumps name for all the Russian political affiliations that are verifiable on the democratic side and see what you really think …………. At least any trump staff , cabinet affiliations were either work related (senator sessions) or business related , not ideological …….. I've actually tried to read guys like alinsky , davis and their demented ideological beliefs , and to see what's going on on the left right now , well i'm on the back 9 .........

stupid , this is only 4 years ago ......



there was a Clinton rally in Cleveland the same day as a Donald trump rally , the Donald trump rally was overrun with protesters , the Clinton rally , none ......

actually groups like communist look for folks with social problems to organize , they're easier to control ...... i'm sure that's what happen in the soviet union , and Nazi Germany , Italian fascist ........ I believe anti-psychotic drugs are prescribed at a rate never before seen in the united states , and imo , this is the result ..... God Help my grandkids ........

3CBF523B00000578-4182824-The_protest_turned_violent_around_6pm_when_a_group_of_demonstrat-a-15_1486015156768.jpg


C2p3VO1XgAIdtIt.jpg


Hr1uAv2WSPC8cHr15xR2JMhvihwVUvm-pYtjOFHcvMjXGtIA5Nri7AL-2MtytO3eL7liPaO7lr9UXkYUsxHyYJEZt0PXkRqDKgxNwfCV8OQJMCZSCSMlhUa6BxmoXPR8MSuIjG19HLQHf2k6i1kZ89VsLKuFhc_2qmkK2HLBlf6DuLunV4K79MPBkr3FWt3vNevhXiV3yUS4cV15ClzLppivejnxTEDgoqHvJm-aqjzgnhecnhXxoFDL8g7hQJdv33c1IImeXI_6DzZDXTtRhIZK=w530-h278-p


 

marke

Well-Known Member
I've always wondered how trump beat Clinton in arkansas by 27% without campaigning there
 

Bailey's Mom

Super Moderator
Super Moderator
I really wish I could honour your positions, but I'm still having trouble figuring out just where your loyalties lie. It is obvious that you are pro-Trump, and pro-Republican, nothing inherently wrong with that. It's a two-party system, you have to pick a team. What I take offense to is the lying and the constant redistribution of disproved Fake
News stories the presence of which is just to smear Clinton OR FOR THAT MATTER, ANYONE! In particular, the Fake News story that Hillary Clinton, as a young lawyer, offered to represent a rapist accused of raping a 12-year-old girl, the story complete with heartlessly laughing at the young victim. It's total bull. But interesting that "your guy" dug that woman up, after many decades, and three ladies who had had sexual relations with Hillary's husband, and paraded them around in front of the cameras to prove what...? It didn't prove anything about HER character, BUT IT DID REVEAL A LOT ABOUT TRUMP'S LACK OF GOOD CHARACTER.

The Truth: Hillary was teaching at the University of Arkansas in the School of Law, she had been instrumental in creating the Legal Aid Clinic there. The prosecutor on the case, a Mr. Marlon Gibson, put her name forward to the Judge on the case, Judge Maupin Cummings, because the accused rapist had asked for a woman lawyer. Hillary wished to decline the request, and did speak to the Judge asking to be removed. He did not grant her request. It's like the army, "Yes, Sir; No, Sir; Three Bags (meaning shit) Full, Sir!"

The guy didn't get off. She didn't set him free! She did give him the best defence she could muster because as a lawyer, That Is The Job Description. She acquitted herself well enough to come to, what amounts to, a draw. A plea deal was struck, a lower charge was plead down to, and the accused served a sentence followed up by probation. Sounds horrible, right? What we will never know is whether the prosecutor flinched or the defence: somebody wasn't either sure of a guilty verdict OR on a verdict of innocence, either way, they did the deal. I've sat in courts where many such deals were reached, pleas changed and court cases shortened (often in time to spare fragile witnesses the harm of testifying in open court), and it's considered a win-win situation. The guilty are punished, the innocent vindicated, the lawyers do their jobs to the best of their skill and ability, and money is saved by shortening the trial and the expense of those trials.

I'm old enough to remember HRC's husband's sexual scandals, and the grace and strength that she had when she faced the world. Americans admired her, they admired that she rose above the scandal and stood by her family. I think they also liked her because she didn't make a scene...she didn't make it worse. She acted like a classy First Lady. And they felt sorry for her.

Years later the story is regurgitated as her fault, her husband's infidelity was her fault. I remember a black preacher who was stumping for Trump saying that very thing. He said she wasn't fit for office because she wasn't able to keep her husband satisfied at home. Personally, I consider men who use this type of argument - she tempted me to rape her/she wanted it/she wasn't woman enough to hold him, etc., etc., I find men like that disgusting. I hope you aren't one of them.

Uranium One. Fake News! It wasn't hers to give or to deny. She didn't have the ability to influence Jack Shit. Any sale of any item that affects national security has to be vetted extensively by NINE government agencies/departments and it was, over multiple years, and after all that, all Nine Agencies/Departments (bi-partisan) shared their review with the President. This multi-year deal met all government rules and regulations that have been created for the protection of the United States security interests. Stop promoting Fake News!

More about your "photo library" later. A picture is worth a thousand words, if you know where it comes from, and if it is contrasted against the events unfolding that day.
 

marke

Well-Known Member
i'm not so much pro trump , i'm pro conservative ........ as far as my voting record , off the top of my head I voted for mike white for mayor in Cleveland 4 times , I like frank Jackson , I've voted for dennis Kucinich , I voted for ross perot ... I believe i'm an independent , near middle right , right around common sense ..........the pictures and videos , I watched them live with most of the country , and it'd take a reasonably unreasonable person to think this stupidity is acceptable ............. did you ever read alinsky , or davis , striking resemblance ......


honestly the Hillary snopes thing was to point out how dishonest snopes is ..... I guess they may be good if your checking out a story on a raccoon robbing a bank , but as far as a political fact checker , I think not ..........


so the roy reed interview is a fake ????? if not Hillary herself says she took the case as a favor ???????



Hillary Clinton: a prosecutor called me years ago, said that he had a guy who was accused of rape and the guy wanted a woman lawyer.

Roy Reed: Why?

Hillary Clinton: Would I do it as a favor to him…????????





I personally heard her laughing about the case at least 4 times , I didn't count ????? she said the fact he passed a lie detector test "forever destroyed my faith in polygraphs" , I personally take that to mean she believed he was guilty , you ???? from that I made the leap of logic to she didn't think the little girl made it up ...... unless the roy reed interview is fake , and I've not seen that proposed anywhere , I think the tape pretty much debunks snopes facts , you ?????





as far as being conservative , I really don't want some morons who burn down and destroy their own neighborhoods because they didn't like the result of a democratic election making any decisions for me ........ and I like to think i'm not in the category that jon gruber put liberal voters , certainly he's referring to liberal voters , as he's talking about Obamacare , and that's not conservative voters...........





is this fake news ??????











 

marke

Well-Known Member
I stand corrected , hrc did accuse the girl of making the rape up ............. I guess snopes struck out completely .......public records can be a bitch ... did you check the podesta groups client's ??????? it's public also ..........

34-e1209c1456.jpg
 

Bailey's Mom

Super Moderator
Super Moderator
Sir, with all due respect, THIS IS A MOTION, IN COURT, TO APPLY FOR A LEVELING OF THE FIELD OF BATTLE, TO INDUCE THE COMPLAINANT, TO UNDERGO A PSYCHIATRIC REVIEW, IN LIGHT , OF EVIDENCE PRODUCED TO THE DEFENCE LAWYER, (not proven, just alleged to her) THAT THE COMPLAINANT HAD PREVIOUSLY ALLEGED ASSAULTS BY OTHER MEN.

Primarily! That's the big deal! Heaven help YOU, if your lawyer wouldn't try to introduce the possibility that there was no cause of action and ask for evidence that could, perhaps, exonerate YOU in a similar circumstance. It's just Due Process. ANY LAWYER WORTH HIS/HER SALT, WOULD HAVE DONE THE SAME. It's one of the things I love about the law.... The Law Is Impartial...it's hard, it's cold, it cleaves bone from sinue. It doesn't give a damn for your political motives...the bare...ripped bare Truth, irrespective of tears and fears and bull is, in the end, dispassionately, THE WINNER!!!

Lives hang in the balance, the Best Defence You Can Muster Is Required Of You!..It is Required of Your Lawyer! On this case it was required of Hillary. Give up theverything Republican smear campaign. Long for the day that TRUTH MATTERED ANY MORE.

PS: I love tilting at your self-serving beliefs, but, honestly, I haven't got time for the "Back Nine", I work , I'm busy, I look after my family's needs. And, reflecting on another member's post, it is useless, Sir , to try and elighten those devoted to their conspiracy theories...they are locked into their beliefs, they drank the kool-aid.
 

marke

Well-Known Member
"Uranium One. Fake News! It wasn't hers to give or to deny. She didn't have the ability to influence Jack Shit. Any sale of any item that affects national security has to be vetted extensivelyNews! by NINE government agencies/departments and it was, over multiple years, and after all that, all Nine Agencies/Departments (bi-partisan) shared their review with the President. This multi-year deal met all government rules and regulations that have been created for the protection of the United States security interests. Stop promoting Fake"

One fact I do know here , I do know what you nor I don't know about this . who was the lead department in this vetting is not public knowledge , many news organizations have tried to find out .......... you cannot know her role in this , it's not public record , and the agency is not allowed to make the information public . anything you've read claiming otherwise is heresay , it's unsubstantiable , might very well be fake news , seeing some of your sources that are without question wrong , your uranium one news is fake news .... my facts are rock solid ............uranium one , years of vetting ??????the 2010 sale took from july to November , 4 months tops , I read a story said it took 52 days to be ok'ed ........... another fact , Clintons state department is politically the most powerful agency on the cfius board , and aside from being a Clinton , the secretary of state in the U.S. is 4rth in line for the presidency ............ another fact , people who benefitted from the sale of uranium one did donate money to the Clinton foundation before during and after the sale .................... another fact , uranium one wasn't just sold to a foreign entity , it was sold to the Russian government , a political adversary , and a nuclear power , the last sale was done in I believe 2013 , not very long ago .......there was more of a reason for clinton to recuse herself from this decision than there was for jeff sessions to recuse himself from any investigation of the president , but there are two standards handed down by the left leaning media ………….


Personally, I consider men who use this type of argument - she tempted me to rape her/she wanted it/she wasn't woman enough to hold him, etc., etc., I find men like that disgusting. I hope you aren't one of them.

I've raised two daughters , I have two granddaughters , your concerns about me are laughable ..... but I possibly have a better perspective on your opinions now ................ what would you think Clinton meant by saying the fact the guy passed a polygraph "forever destroyed my faith in polygraphs" then she laughs ????

So if you don’t find women lawyers who think like you described disgusting ( that somehow “she asked for it” , she made up the circumstances , or she's psychologically unstable )?????? do you find men lawyers who think like that disgusting ??? how about a man lawyer who would use that as a defense for himself ????? the docket , transcripts and results of this case are public record , not to mention there is an interview with hillary herself about the case . for snopes to spin this is pretty flagrant , I guess like jon gruber they were counting on the stupidity of the general public ………


HILLARY CLINTON
"I have been informed that the complainant is emotionally unstable with a tendency to seek out older men and engage in fantasizing . I have also been informed that she has in the past made false accusations about persons , claiming they had attacked her body . Also that she exhibits an unusual stubbornness and temper when she doesn't get her way ."

"I have also been told by an expert in child psychology that children in early adolescence tend to exaggerate or romanticize sexual experiences and that adolescents
with disorganized families , such as the complainant's , are even more prone to such behavior ."

i'd love to hear you expound on this statement , "even a black man " ?????? lol
"Obama, a black man...So, predictable...even a black man was preferable to a woman"


I’ve watched the media spin the comey, Rodgers statements in this recent hearing , quoting them as saying “ trump was not “wiretapped” by the obama administration” . I seen this stuff first hand , what they said was "they themselves had seen no evidence of it “, the difference in wording is critical for media to get their spin ……… comey and rodgers themselves pointed out the difference in wording on several occasions , as the democratic senators tried desperately to put the wording in their mouths ……….. btw , the media and entertainment industry in the united states is overwhelmingly liberal and liberal owned ,that’d be the left , not right …………. I’ve seen politician do what the democrats did in the comey Rodgers hearing countless times before , introducing unsubstantiated information and conjecture into the record for use in news snippets , this may have beenone of the most bold faced obvious examples I've seen . either they’re dumber in their approach , or they figure their constituents are dumber ……… the news uses these snippets to lead the public in the direction they personally desire , which overwhelmingly is left …………. It doesn’t take much to start a spin , a word here or there , once that wording is accepted , your in there ….. I assume within a week or so we’ll have a better understanding of how trumps private phone conversations with other world leaders during the transition ended up in the news …………..i personally would guess the result nothing less than the "lie he told" , true to alinsky davis doctrine , any means justify their ends ………


by the "back nine" I meant in reference to my life ..... I own stuff I worked to get , hopefully my grandkids will have the same opportunity ....... I also work for a living , it’s why I’ve become so conservative over time , you get tired of seeing what's done with the money they take from you ............. I don’t find this very time consuming , Difference may be I know most of this stuff beforehand , there's less real news than fake news , so I have less to wade through , and I know exactly where to look ……….. there is some scary stuff here , and as I said earlier , it’s not the Russians …….

https://www.forbes.com/2009/04/17/clinton-sergei-kurzin-opinions-contributors-sidorov.html
 

Bailey's Mom

Super Moderator
Super Moderator
truth-final-cover.jpg

TRUTH AND CONSEQUENCES
When a President Can't Be Taken at His Word
http://time.com/4710615/donald-trump-truth-falsehoods

**************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************

Bill Maher with his opening guest, Matt Schlapp, on his show Friday. Watch it, and try to watch the whole show. "T" is for Treason.

**************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/2016/07/20/the-10-best-fact-checking-sites

http://www.factcheck.org/2016/10/factchecking-the-second-presidential-debate

http://www.factcheck.org/2015/04/no-veto-power-for-clinton-on-uranium-deal

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-russian-uranium-deal/?utm_term=.aaf6bae56f0c

***************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************

The three articles below are from the above sites, The Washington Post Fact Checker, and Factcheck.Org I encourage anyone who really wants to know the TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH, to sign up for the The Washington Post's Fact Checking email. Also, make it a habit to visit Factcheck.org and the other sites mentioned. As you will see if you go to the first website mentioned, "mediabiasfactcheck.com" there is a list of the 10 best checking sites. I'm sure there are others that didn't make this cut. Factcheck.org, Snopes, & Washington Post Fact Checker were among the top 10.

It is amazing how much work was done to fact check the allegations
BY BOTH SIDES during the Second Presidential Debate. So much is coming at us every day, we need to go back and just take a drink from this well to get our bearings.

No one, not me, not Marke, not the guy at the corner store, no one person should frame reality for you, BUT, Reality and Truth Can Be Known with a click of a mouse! You can see both sides and after that you can find the balanced voices in the middle.
BEFORE ONE MORE PERSON VOTES (Midterms are coming up fast) THEY SHOULD KNOW ALL THE TRUTH AND NOT BE SWAYED BY THE PASSIONATE LIES OF EITHER SIDE.


**************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************


The Washington Post Fact Checker

Fact Checker
The facts about Hillary Clinton and the Kathy Shelton rape case

By Glenn Kessler October 11, 2016
Who are the four women whom Trump says were mistreated by the Clintons?


Donald Trump held a news conference ahead of the second presidential debate on Oct. 9 with four women who have made allegations in the past against Bill and Hillary Clinton. The Washington Post’s Glenn Kessler explains those allegations. (Bastien Inzaurralde/The Washington Post)

“I am also here to support Trump. At 12 years old, Hillary put me through something that you would never put a 12- year-old through. And she says she is for women and children.”
— Kathy Shelton, at a news conference hosted by Donald Trump, Oct. 9, 2016

“Hillary then began to attack my character, forcing me to undergo multiple polygraph tests where I was asked explicit sexual questions I didn’t even understand. Next I was sent for a psychiatric examination. It felt like I was the one on trial.”
— Shelton, first-person account on gofundme page

Before the second debate, Donald Trump held a brief news conference with three women who claim they were abused by Bill Clinton – and one woman, Kathy Shelton, who says Hillary Clinton ruined her life when she was appointed by the court to defend the man who raped Shelton in 1975.



Memorable quotes from Clinton and Trump’s second presidential debate
TrumpClintonIll927.jpg



Here are some memorable quotes from the presidential debate in St. Louis, Mo.
While the cases of three women connected to Bill Clinton have been well-litigated in the media, the Kathy Shelton case has attracted much less attention. Until a Newsday reporter informed her in 2007 that Clinton was the lawyer in the case, Shelton had no idea that Hillary Clinton had been involved.

Moreover, a central part of her story — the psychiatric exam — does not appear to have taken place, according to court records.

The Facts
In 1975, Clinton — then Hillary Rodham — was a 27-year-old law instructor running a legal aid clinic at the University of Arkansas in Fayetteville. After a 41-year-old factory worker was accused of raping a 12-year-old girl, he asked the judge to replace his court-appointed male attorney with a female one. The judge went through the list of a half-dozen women practicing law in the county and picked Clinton. She has said she was not thrilled with the assignment but felt she had little choice but to take the court appointment — which the prosecutor in the case confirmed to CNN.

Court records describe a sad tale. Shelton, at the time 12 years old, went out for a late-night drive with Tom Taylor, then 41, a 20-year-old cousin, and a 15-year-old boy with whom she was apparently infatuated. They bought a pint of Old Grand-Dad whisky, which was mixed with Coca-Cola for Shelton. After hanging out at a bowling alley for a few hours, they allegedly drove to a ravine where the two older men left Shelton and the 15-year-old together. The two then had sex, the boy told police. After they were finished, Taylor approached the truck and apparently attacked Shelton. The boy reported that Shelton screamed and he saw Taylor hitching up his pants.

As part of her handling of the case, Clinton filed an affidavit July 28, 1975, requesting that the girl go through a psychiatric examination. “I have been informed that the complainant is emotionally unstable with a tendency to seek out older men and to engage in fantasizing,” Clinton said. “I have also been informed that she has in the past made false accusations about persons, claiming they had attacked her body. Also that she exhibits an unusual stubbornness and temper when she does not get her way.”

Clinton offered no source for the claims.

When Glenn Thrush, then a reporter for Newsday, showed the affidavit to Shelton in 2007, he wrote that she was visibly stunned. “It kind of shocks me – it’s not true,” she said. “I never said anybody attacked my body before, never in my life.”

But Shelton told Thrush at the time that she bore no ill will toward Clinton. “I have to understand that she was representing Taylor,” she said. “I’m sure Hillary was just doing her job.”

But in 2014, Shelton told the Daily Beast that she had been misquoted. “Hillary Clinton took me through hell,” she said.

Shelton’s ire had risen with the 2014 discovery of previously unpublished audio recordings of Clinton discussing the case in the mid-1980s with Arkansas reporter Roy Reed for an article that was never published.

In the recorded interview, Clinton is heard laughing or giggling four times when discussing the case with unusual candor; the reporter is also heard laughing, and sometimes Clinton is responding to him.

For instance, Clinton laughed after she said: “Of course he [the defendant] claimed he didn’t [rape]. All this stuff. He took a lie-detector test. I had him take a polygraph, which he passed, which forever destroyed my faith in polygraphs.”

[Update: Reed in an interview published Oct. 12 denied that Clinton was laughing at Shelton. “As far as her laughing, God knows she was not laughing over the notion that this rapist was going to go free," said Reed. “I challenge any fair-minded reader of that transcript to make a case that Hillary Rodham was a coldblooded lawyer who was laughing over the plight of
the 12-year-old rape victim,"]


The Daily Beast article said:

The victim was put through several forensic procedures, including a lie detector test. At first, she failed the lie detector test; she said that was because she didn’t understand one of the specific sex-related questions. Once that question was explained to her, she passed, she said. The victim positively identified her two attackers through one-way glass and they were arrested.

In an interview with the Daily Mail that appeared Aug. 9, Shelton agreed for the first time to be identified by name. This article strongly suggested that what it described as “a grueling court-ordered psychiatric examination” took place:

Although Clinton’s legal maneuver would likely be prohibited today under Arkansas rape shield act, the law was not passed until two years after the case.

Shelton said one of her worst memories of the case was being questioned repeatedly by appointed experts.

“It got so bad that I told my mom I wasn’t going back, and whatever happened, happened,” said Shelton. “It’s sad that a 12-year-old had to go through what I had to go through, because for days I cried and cried and cried over it.”

The gofundme site, which was established Aug. 13 and seeks to raise $10,000,quotes Shelton as explicitly saying that the test took place: “Hillary then began to attack my character, forcing me to undergo multiple polygraph tests where I was asked explicit sexual questions I didn’t even understand. Next I was sent for a psychiatric examination. It felt like I was the one on trial.”

But the court docket, unearthed by Pittsburgh attorney Norma Chase and for the first time made public, shows that one day after Clinton filed a request for psychiatric exam, it was denied by the judge. The court docket for July 28 says Clinton filed her motion for an exam. On July 29, it states: “Hearing on Motion for Psychiatric Examination — Motion denied. Defendant objects.” (There is also no evidence that Clinton was responsible for arranging Shelton’s polygraph test.)

Here’s the docket sheet:

Taylor Docket Entries by GlennKesslerWP on Scribd

As a court-appointed defense lawyer, Clinton was required to look out for her client’s interests. The prosecutor was supposed to look out for Shelton’s interests. The judge in the case was to hear the facts and decide what could be permitted. In this case, he rejected Clinton’s request.

For a variety of reasons, a plea agreement to a reduced charge was reached. Investigators mishandled evidence of Taylor’s bloody underwear, cutting out the stain that contained semen for testing and then losing it. Newsday also quoted a retired detective on the case as saying that Shelton’s “ ‘infatuation’ with the teenage boy, which she refused to admit,” led to “serious inconsistencies in her statements about the incident.” The detective also said Shelton’s mother “was so eager to end the ordeal she coached her daughter’s statements and interrupted interviews with police.”

Shelton did not respond to requests for comment left on her phone and the gofundme site. We also sought comment from Candice E. Jackson, an attorney who represents her.

Update: After this column appeared, Shelton’s gofundme site was substantially revised, with all references to an alleged psychiatric exam and the polygraph test removed. A screen grab of the original page is below:

Sean Hannity show on Oct. 13 is different than Shelton’s original account on the gofundme site: “On May 10, 1975, in Springdale, Arkansas, two men lured me into their truck with the promise of a soda. I knew them and trusted them.” Now to conform with her interview on Hannity, it says: “On May 10, 1975, in Springdale Arkansas two men, one around age 40 and the other in his teens, yanked me off my bicycle as I was riding to church.” She also told Hannity that she spent five days in a coma, but court records show that four days after the rape, which took place at 4 a.m., an investigator signed a report on his conversation with Shelton.

The Bottom Line
Memories are malleable over time. The record shows that Shelton’s memories of the case have changed, specifically concerning being forced to take a psychiatric exam that, it turns out, was not approved by the court. Shelton did not know about Clinton’s affidavit asking for the exam in the 41-year-old case until it was shown to her by a reporter nine years ago. There is little indication that the outcome of the case would have been much different, no matter the defense attorney, given the mishandling of the evidence and Shelton’s difficulties as a witness. Yet now the exam has become a key part of her story in order to raise funds.

Shelton is a rape victim and until recently has not been in the public eye. However, she chose to appear at Trump’s news conference, and Trump has begun to highlight her story in campaign speeches. We’re not going to assign a Pinocchio rating, but readers should be aware of the facts of her case — and how her account has changed over time


**************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************
The Washington Post
Fact Checker
The facts behind Trump’s repeated claim about Hillary Clinton’s role in the Russian uranium deal


By Michelle Ye Hee Lee October 26, 2016

2016-10-25T210333Z_01_WAS947_RTRIDSP_3_USA-ELECTION-TRUMP-4139.jpg



The GOP presidential nominee is pressing his case ahead of Election Day.
“Hillary Clinton gave them 20 percent of our uranium — gave Russia for a big payment.”
— Donald Trump, campaign rally, Oct. 25, 2016

“Remember that Hillary Clinton gave Russia 20 percent of American uranium and, you know, she was paid a fortune. You know, they got a tremendous amount of money.”
— Donald Trump, campaign rally, Oct. 24, 2016

“She even handed over American uranium rights to the Russians.”
— voice-over in Trump campaign ad, “Corruption”

Hillary Clinton’s involvement with a Russian uranium deal has come under scrutiny since author and Breitbart News senior editor-at-large Peter Schweizer dedicated a chapter to the topic in his 2015 book, “Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich.”

The Trump campaign has been attacking Clinton over the uranium deal lately, perhaps as a way to distract attention from criticism of Trump’s interest in fostering a closer relationship with Russia. “Clinton Cash” was made into a graphic novel and a documentary, and on Oct. 20, makers of the graphic novel released an animated ad about the uranium deal. FactCheck.org and PolitiFact have covered the facts, and we wrote about the deal briefly in a speech roundup. But with the renewed attention this month, we decided to take a deeper look at Clinton’s role in this deal.

The Facts
The deal

The Trump campaign pointed to an April 2015 New York Times article about this deal, based on a preview of “Clinton Cash.” The Times said it “scrutinized his [Schweizer’s] information and built upon it with its own reporting.”

The story starts with Frank Giustra, a Canadian mining financier and donor to the Clinton Foundation; Giustra’s company, UrAsia; and Uranium One, a uranium mining company headquartered in Toronto.

In 2007, Giustra sold UrAsia to Uranium One, which was based in South Africa and chaired by his friend, Ian Telfer. Giustra said he sold his personal stake in the deal in fall 2007, shortly after the merger with Uranium One, in the midst of Clinton’s 2008 presidential campaign and before Clinton realized Barack Obama would win the nomination and she would become his secretary of state.


In 2009, Russia’s nuclear energy agency, Rosatom, began buying shares in Uranium One as a part of a larger move to acquire mines around the world. Rosatom first bought a 17 percent share of Uranium One, which has holdings in the United States. In 2010, the Russians sought to increase their share to 51 percent. The Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) and the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission approved the deal. In 2013, Russia assumed 100 percent ownership.

The deal gave Russia control of about 20 percent of U.S. uranium extraction capacity, according to a 2010 CNN article about the deal. In other words, Russia has rights to the uranium extracted at those sites, which represents 20 percent of the U.S. uranium production capacity.

Clinton’s role

The State Department was one of nine agencies comprising CFIUS, which vets potential national security impacts of transactions where a foreign government gains control of a U.S. company. It was established by Congress in 2007 after the controversy over the planned purchase of seaports by a company in United Arab Emirates. The other agencies were the departments of Treasury, Defense, Justice, Commerce, Energy and Homeland Security, and two White House agencies (Office of the U.S. Trade Representative and Office of Science and Technology Policy).

The CFIUS can approve a deal, but only the president can suspend or stop a transaction. If the committee can’t come to a consensus, a member can recommend a suspension or prohibition of the deal, and the president makes the call.

Due to confidentiality laws, there are few details made public about the deal or about Clinton’s role in it, factcheck.org found. The Clinton campaign saidClinton herself was not involved in the State Department’s review and did not direct the department to take any position on the sale of Uranium One. Matters of the CFIUS did not rise to the level of the secretary, the campaign said.

Jose Fernandez, then-assistant secretary of state for economic, energy and business affairs, sat on the committee. Fernandez told the Times: “Mrs. Clinton never intervened with me on any CFIUS matter.” Fernandez did not respond to our requests for comment.


“Hillary’s opposition [to the Uranium One deal] would have been enough under CFIUS rules to have the decision on the transaction kicked up to the president. That never happened,” Schweizer wrote in “Clinton Cash.”

At the time the sale was underway, the Obama administration was attempting to “reset” its relations with Russia, with Clinton leading the effort as secretary of state. But there is no evidence approval of the sale was connected to the reset policy. The national security concern that the United States faced when CFIUS considered the deal concerned American dependence on foreign uranium sources, the Times reported.

Yet the Uranium One deal was not on the radar of Michael McFaul, even though he was aware of many CFIUS cases in his role as the National Security Council’s senior director for Russian and Eurasian affairs from 2009 to 2012 (and as a prime architect of the administration’s reset policy). McFaul, now senior fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution, said Fernandez could not “dictate the outcome of any decision single-handedly,” as he was one of nine members.

“Knowing how the CFIUS process works and how the bureaucracy at the State Department works, I cannot imagine that such an issue would be reviewed by the secretary of state. There is a hierarchy in place precisely to protect the secretary’s time for only the most important of issues and meetings,” McFaul said.

“I was not personally involved because that wasn’t something the secretary of state did,” Clinton told a New Hampshire TV station in June 2015.

Some Republican lawmakers in 2010 did raise concerns about the deal — but they sent their letter to then-Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner. (Treasury chairs the CFIUS.) Final approval was given by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which noted that the mines would remain under the control of U.S. subsidiaries. “Neither Uranium One nor ARMZ [the Russian firm] holds an NRC export license, so no uranium produced at either facility may be exported,” the NRC said. (Some uranium yellowcake is extracted, processed in Canada and returned to the United States.)


We asked the Trump campaign for evidence that Clinton or the State Department had more of a role in the deal than any of the eight other member agencies of CFIUS, and did not receive a response.

Quid pro quo claims

Did the Clintons get paid for the Russian deal? The Trump campaign pointed to donations to the Clinton Foundation, as reported by the Times. Giustra became friends with Bill Clinton in 2005, over their charity work. The Washington Post took an in-depth look at their ties and described their friendship as one “that has helped propel the Clinton Foundation into a global giant and established Giustra’s reputation as an international philanthropist while helping him build connections in countries where his business was expanding.”

Giustra eventually became one of the largest individual donors to the Clinton Foundation. His relationship with the Clintons came under scrutiny over donors to the Clinton Giustra Enterprise Partnership (Canada), which raises money for the similarly named Clinton Giustra Enterprise Partnership, one of the Clinton Foundation’s initiatives. (For more on this, read more about it here, here and here.)

Individuals related to Uranium One and UrAsia, including Giustra and Telfer, donated to the Clinton Foundation, totaling about $145 million. The Times reported that Telfer also donated to the Clinton Foundation using his family charity based in Canada. These were donations made to the Clinton Foundation, not directly to the Clintons.

As PolitiFact found, the majority of these donations were made before and during Clinton’s 2008 presidential run. So Trump’s claim that Hillary Clinton “gave [uranium to] Russia for a big payment” is not accurate. If she had actually become president, she would have had more power over the deal than as the head of one agency among nine represented on CFIUS.

The Trump campaign also noted that Bill Clinton received speaking fees while the Uranium One deal was underway. After the Russians announced that they would acquire stakes in Uranium One, and while the Kremlin was promoting the purchase, Bill Clinton received $500,000 in 2010 for a speech in Moscow from a Russian investment bank that had ties to the Kremlin. Putin personally thanked Clinton, the Wall Street Journal reported, adding that a review of Bill Clinton’s speeches “found no evidence that speaking fees were paid to the former president in exchange for any action by Mrs. Clinton.”

The Times also did not report a direct link between Bill Clinton and the deal. The bank’s analysts talked up Uranium One’s stock while the deal was under CFIUS consideration, and assigned it a “buy” rating. The bank “would not comment on the genesis of Mr. Clinton’s speech to an audience that included leading Russian officials, or on whether it was connected to the Rosatom deal,” the Times reported.

The Pinocchio Test
Trump and his campaign claim that Clinton “gave” or “handed over” 20 percent of American uranium rights to the Russians. Through the Uranium One deal, the Russian state-owned nuclear energy company does now have control over 20 percent of U.S. uranium extraction capacity. But it cannot export the uranium.

In 2010, the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States approved the sale of the majority of the shares to the Russians. The State Department was one of nine agencies on the committee that approved the deal. The deal was also separately approved by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

There is no evidence Clinton herself got involved in the deal personally, and it is highly questionable that this deal even rose to the level of the secretary of state. Theoretically, as Schweizer says, Clinton could have intervened. But even then, it ultimately would have been Obama’s decision whether to suspend or block the deal.

We wavered between Three and Four Pinocchios. Trump so often uses broad-brushed language that pushes him into Four Pinocchio territory, and this is yet another one of those cases. He specifically names Hillary Clinton as the active agent in the Uranium One deal, saying she “gave them” or “handed over” uranium to the Russians, but that is not the case. Then, he further claimed the sale went forward in exchange “for a big payment.” There’s no evidence for that claim either.

Trump could have avoided so many Pinocchios had he been more careful with the language. For example: “Hillary Clinton’s State Department was one of nine agencies that approved the deal.” Words matter.

Four Pinocchios


pinocchio_4.jpg



*******************************************************************************************************************

FactChecking the Second Presidential Debate

We found a mountain of false and misleading statements in the second meeting of the presidential nominees.
Summary

ST. LOUIS — In a sometimes nasty second presidential debate, there were again several calls by the candidates for fact-checkers to referee competing statements, which we are happy to oblige. But even when Republican Donald Trump and Democrat Hillary Clinton weren’t calling out each other on the facts, we found many of their uncontested claims to be misleading or false.

  • Clinton exaggerated when she said the U.S. was now “energy independent.” The country imported 11 percent of total energy consumed in 2015.
  • Trump falsely said he never tweeted “check out a sex tape” in the wee hours of the morning a few days after the first presidential debate. He did.
  • Trump told Clinton “after getting the subpoena” to turn over documents related to the Benghazi investigation “you delete 33,000 emails.” A contractor managing Clinton’s server deleted the emails. There is no evidence Clinton knew when they were deleted.
  • Trump also said Clinton’s emails were “acid washed,” calling it a “very expensive process.” Neither statement is true. The emails were deleted using a free software program that does not involve the use of chemicals.
  • Clinton said there is “no evidence that anyone hacked the server I was using.” That is true, but the FBI said it was “possible” that her email system was hacked because she sent and received emails in “the territory of sophisticated adversaries.”
  • Clinton said intelligence officials said this week that Russians were behind political hacking attacks in the U.S. Trump said, “She doesn’t know if Russia is doing the hacking.” Clinton is closer to the truth.
  • Clinton claimed she was holding up Abraham Lincoln as an example of leadership when she defended “back room” deals. Turns out, she did.
  • Trump distorted the facts about a rape case that Clinton was involved in as a legal aid lawyer in 1975, wrongly accusing Clinton of “laughing at” the victim.
  • Both candidates distorted the other’s tax plan. Trump said Clinton was “raising everybody’s taxes massively,” when two analyses concluded almost all of the tax increases she proposes would fall on the top 10 percent. And Clinton claimed Trump’s plan “would end up raising taxes on middle class families.” Some families would see increased taxes, but on average middle-income taxpayers would get a tax cut.
  • Trump wrongly claimed that Clinton’s 2008 campaign manager said on TV that the campaign had started the false rumor that Obama was not born in the U.S.
  • Trump wrongly claimed that Clinton wanted to implement a government-run, “single-payer,” health care system, like Canada’s, and he cherry-picked high proposed premium increases in the Affordable Care Act exchanges.
  • Clinton went too far in saying an ACA provision to allow young adults to stay on their parents plans until age 26 was “something that didn’t happen before.” At least 31 states had similar provisions before the law was enacted.
  • Trump said that “Ambassador [Chris] Stevens sent 600 requests for help” before he was killed in an attack on the U.S. diplomatic post in Benghazi, Libya, in September 2012. But not all 600 were requests for security upgrades, nor were they all from Stevens.
  • The candidates disagreed over Clinton’s role in a U.S. response to Syrian President Bashar Assad’s use of chemical weapons. Both had a point. Clinton was in office when President Obama said Assad’s use of chemical weapons would cross a “red line for us,” but she was gone when Obama failed to back up his threat.
  • Clinton claimed that since the Great Recession the gains have all gone to the top, but a 2016 economic report said that in 2014 and 2015 “the incomes of bottom 99% families have finally started recovering in earnest.”
  • Trump again claimed without evidence that “many people saw the bombs all over the apartment” of the San Bernardino shooters.
And there were more claims that we’ve heard before on trade, foreign affairs and nuclear weapons.

Note to Readers: Deputy Managing Editor Robert Farley was at the debate at Washington University. This story was written by Farley with the help of the entire staff, based in the Philadelphia region and Washington, D.C. An annotated transcript of the debate with our fact-checks can be found here.

Analysis
The second of three presidential debates was held on Oct. 9 at Washington University in St. Louis. The much-anticipated town hall-style matchup came as both candidates were facing renewed scrutiny: Republican nominee Donald Trump for lewd comments about women made in 2005 but just released on Oct. 7; and Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton for the public release of hacked emails from her campaign. As in the first debate, we found plenty of distortions of fact.

Energy Independence
Clinton exaggerated when she said the U.S. was now “energy independent.”

Clinton: You know that we are now for the first time ever energy independent. We are not dependent upon the Middle East, but the Middle East still controls a lot of the prices. …We’ve got to remain energy independent. It gives us much more power and freedom than to be worried about what goes on in the Middle East. We have enough worries over there without having to worry about that.

Actually, the U.S. imported 11 percent of the total energy it consumed in 2015, according to the most recent figures from the Energy Information Administration, and that percentage increased to 12 percent in the first six months of this year.

While it’s correct to say that last year’s dependence on imported energy (from all sources, not just petroleum) was the lowest in a long time, it doesn’t represent total “independence,” and it’s not even the first time “ever” that the percentage has been so low. It was below 11 percent every single year from 1949 (the start of EIA’s figures) through 1971.

Judging by her repeated mention of the “Middle East,” we suspect Clinton was thinking specifically of oil imports and not total energy. But looking only at petroleum, she’s even further off base to claim “independence.”

In 2015, the U.S. imported 24 percent of the petroleum and refined products that it consumed. To be sure, that was the lowest annual level of dependency on imports since 1970. However, dependency on imports has begun creeping upward once again. For the first eight months of 2016, imports have accounted for an average of 27.5 percent of consumption.

Furthermore, the U.S. is still importing a fair amount of oil from Persian Gulf states, despite what Clinton said about being “not dependent upon the Middle East.”

The total imports of petroleum and petroleum products from Persian Gulf states averaged 1.5 million barrels per day last year. That’s 45 percent less than the U.S. imported from them in 2001, when the total hit an annual high. But it’s still a long way from zero.

Trump’s Sex Tape Tweet
Trump said he never tweeted “check out a sex tape” in the wee hours of the morning a few days after the first presidential debate. That’s false — he did.

Debate moderator Anderson Cooper asked Trump whether he had the “discipline” to be president, given the fact that he sent out “a series of tweets between 3 a.m. and 5 a.m., including one that told people to check out a sex tape” in the days after the first presidential debate.

Trump responded, “No, there wasn’t ‘check out a sex tape.’ It was just take a look at the person [former Miss Universe Alicia Machado] that [Clinton] built up to be this wonderful Girl Scout, who was no Girl Scout.”

But Trump did say exactly that.

On Sept. 30 at 5:30 a.m., Trump tweeted, “Did Crooked Hillary help disgusting (check out sex tape and past) Alicia M become a U.S. citizen so she could use her in the debate?”

As for the supposed sex tape, Trump may be referring to a grainy, night-vision scene in a Spanish reality TV show in which Machado could be having sex under covers.

Clinton Emails
There were several claims about Clinton’s emails that were either wrong, misleading or lacked context.

Trump twisted the facts when he directly addressed Clinton about her use of a private email system while secretary of state. “You get a subpoena and after getting the subpoena you delete 33,000 emails. And then you acid wash them — or bleach them, as you would say — a very expensive process,” Trump said.

Trump is referring to 31,830 emails that Clinton’s lawyers had deemed personal and, as a result, did not have to be turned over to the government. As we have written, the department’s policy allows its employees to determine which emails are work-related and must be preserved. “Messages that are not records may be deleted when no longer needed,” according to the State Department’s Foreign Affairs Manual (5 FAM 443.5). So Clinton was entitled to delete those nearly 32,000 emails.

It is true that the emails were deleted after Clinton received a subpoena from a Republican-controlled House committee investigation into the 2012 deaths of four Americans in Benghazi. But there is no evidence that Clinton knew that the emails were deleted after the subpoena was issued.

A quick recap of what happened, according to FBI notes of its investigation: In December 2014, a Clinton attorney told Platte River Networks – which at the time was managing Clinton’s private server – that Clinton had preserved her work-related emails and “decided she no longer needed access to any of her e-mails older than 60 days.” Cheryl Mills, Clinton’s former chief of staff, instructed the PRN employee — who was not identified — “to modify the e-mail retention policy” on Clinton’s server “to reflect this change,” FBI notes show.

On March 9, 2015, Clinton’s attorney informed PRN of the committee’s subpoena. The PRN employee who deleted the emails told the FBI that “he had an ‘oh shit’ moment” sometime between March 25 and March 31, 2015, and deleted the Clinton emails from the PRN server. Clinton told the FBI that she was not aware that they were deleted in late March 2015. (See pages 17-19 for the FBI’s notes on the deleted emails.) The FBI did not say when Clinton learned when the emails had been deleted.

Trump went too far when he said “after getting the subpoena you delete 33,000 emails” since there is no evidence at this time that shows she had knowledge of when the emails were deleted.

Also, Trump said the emails were “acid washed,” calling it a “very expensive process.” Neither statement is true. As we wrote, the FBI said that PRN used BleachBit, which is a free software program that does not involve the use of chemicals.

As for Clinton, she glossed over the facts when she said that there is “no evidence that anyone hacked the server I was using.” That is true, but FBI Director James Comey said it was “possible” that her email system was hacked because she sent and received emails while in “the territory of sophisticated adversaries.”

Comey, July 5: With respect to potential computer intrusion by hostile actors, we did not find direct evidence that Secretary Clinton’s personal e-mail domain, in its various configurations since 2009, was successfully hacked. But, given the nature of the system and of the actors potentially involved, we assess that we would be unlikely to see such direct evidence. We do assess that hostile actors gained access to the private commercial e-mail accounts of people with whom Secretary Clinton was in regular contact from her personal account. We also assess that Secretary Clinton’s use of a personal e-mail domain was both known by a large number of people and readily apparent. She also used her personal e-mail extensively while outside the United States, including sending and receiving work-related e-mails in the territory of sophisticated adversaries. Given that combination of factors, we assess it is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton’s personal e-mail account.

Hacking Attacks
Clinton claimed intelligence officials said this week that Russians were behind political hacking attacks, including of the Democratic National Committee. But Trump said, “She doesn’t know if Russia is doing the hacking.” Clinton is tilting closer toward the truth on this one.

Clinton: Our intelligence community just came out and said in the last few days, that the Kremlin, meaning Putin and the Russian government, are directing the attacks, the hacking on American accounts to influence our election.

Trump: … I notice any time anything wrong happens they like to say, the Russians, the Russians—she doesn’t know it’s the Russians doing the hacking, maybe there is no hacking, but they always blame Russia.

On Oct. 7, the Department Of Homeland Security and Office of the Director of National Intelligence on Election Security issued a joint statement saying they were “confident” that recent hacks into the email systems of the Democratic Party were directed by the Russian government.

Joint Statement, Oct. 7: The U.S. Intelligence Community (USIC) is confident that the Russian Government directed the recent compromises of e-mails from US persons and institutions, including from US political organizations. The recent disclosures of alleged hacked e-mails on sites like DCLeaks.com and WikiLeaks and by the Guccifer 2.0 online persona are consistent with the methods and motivations of Russian-directed efforts. These thefts and disclosures are intended to interfere with the US election process. Such activity is not new to Moscow—the Russians have used similar tactics and techniques across Europe and Eurasia, for example, to influence public opinion there. We believe, based on the scope and sensitivity of these efforts, that only Russia’s senior-most officials could have authorized these activities.

Russia has denied any involvement. But NBC News reported that U.S. intelligence officials were able to determine Russia’s involvement based on the “signature” of the attacks, which “hackers may not have realized they left behind.”

Invoking Lincoln
Clinton invoked Abraham Lincoln in defending a comment she made in a paid speech to apartment building landlords about politicians needing “a public position and a private position.”

Q: [Y]ou say you need both a public and private position on certain issues. So … is it okay for politicians to be two-faced?

Clinton: [T]hat was something I said about Abraham Lincoln, and after having seen the wonderful Steven Spielberg movie called “Lincoln” [working to] get the congress to approve the 13th amendment [which prohibits slavery]. It was principled and it was strategic. … That was a great I thought a great display of presidential leadership.

The question referred to a private email message — posted by Wikileaks — outlining some possibly troublesome passages from Clinton’s paid speeches, the transcripts of which she has not made public. It included this passage, supposedly from a transcript of a speech Clinton made to the National Multi-Family Council (a trade group for the apartment industry) on April 24, 2013 (emphasis added):

Clinton (as quoted by Wikileaks): You just have to sort of figure out how to — getting back to that word, “balance” — how to balance the public and the private efforts that are necessary to be successful, politically, and that’s not just a comment about today.

That, I think, has probably been true for all of our history, and if you saw the Spielberg movie, “Lincoln,” and how he was maneuvering and working to get the 13th Amendment passed, and he called one of my favorite predecessors, Secretary Seward, who had been the governor and senator from New York, ran against Lincoln for president, and he told Seward, I need your help to get this done. And Seward called some of his lobbyist friends who knew how to make a deal, and they just kept going at it.

I mean, politics is like sausage being made. It is unsavory, and it always has been that way, but we usually end up where we need to be. But if everybody’s watching, you know, all of the back room discussions and the deals, you know, then people get a little nervous, to say the least. So, you need both a public and a private position.

So we find Clinton was correct to this extent: If the Wikileaks quote is accurate — and Clinton did not dispute it — she was indeed holding the Great Emancipator up as an example to justify taking one position in public and another in “back room discussions.” But she also was conceding that she sometimes feels it politically necessary to be “two faced,” to use the phrase posed by the questioner.

Clinton ‘Laughing’ at Rape Victim?
While talking about Bill Clinton being “abusive to women,” Trump distorted the facts about a rape case that Hillary Clinton was involved in as a legal aid lawyer in 1975.

Trump accused Hillary Clinton of “laughing at” a 12-year-old girl who was raped and claimed that Clinton “got [the accused rapist] off.” But Clinton did not laugh at the girl, and her client pleaded to a lesser offense.

Also, the rape case has nothing to do with Bill Clinton, although viewers may have been misled into thinking that it did because of how Trump discussed the case.

Trump: Bill Clinton was abusive to women. Hillary Clinton attacked those same women and attacked them viciously. Four of them are here tonight. One of the women, who is a wonderful woman, at 12 years-old, was raped at 12. Her client she represented got him off and she’s seen laughing on two separate occasions laughing at the girl who was raped. Kathy Shelton, that young woman, is here with us tonight.

As we have written before, Clinton defended an accused rapist in 1975 when she worked at the University of Arkansas School Legal Aid Clinic. In her book “Living History,” Clinton recalled that Mahlon Gibson, a Washington County prosecutor, told her that the accused rapist “wanted a woman lawyer” to defend him, and that Gibson had recommended Clinton to Judge Maupin Cummings.

In a taped interview in 1980, Clinton recalled the rape case, and she can be heard laughing three times, beginning with a joke she makes about the accuracy of polygraphs. She said, “He took a lie detector test. I had him take a polygraph, which he passed, which forever destroyed my faith in polygraphs.”

At another point, Clinton said the prosecutor balked at turning over evidence, forcing her to go to the judge to obtain it. “So I got an order to see the evidence and the prosecutor didn’t want me to see the evidence. I had to go to Maupin Cummings and convince Maupin that yes indeed I had a right to see the evidence [Clinton laughs] before it was presented.”

Clinton did get the evidence, which turned out to be a pair of the accused’s underwear with a hole in it — which Clinton laughed about as she retold the story of taking the underwear to a forensic expert in New York. Clinton said that the expert told her that there wasn’t enough material on the underwear to test. In recalling the incident, Clinton said she told the judge that the forensic expert is “ready to come up from New York to prevent this miscarriage of justice.” It was at this point that Clinton laughed.

We leave it for others to judge if her laughter was appropriate, but Clinton wasn’t laughing at the victim.

Clinton also didn’t “get him off.” The defendant pleaded guilty to a lesser offense and served one year in county jail and four years of probation.

Competing Tax Claims
In dueling tax claims, the candidates distorted the effects of each other’s tax plans.

Trump said of Clinton’s plan, “She is raising everybody’s taxes massively.” Everybody? No. Analyses by the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center and the pro-business Tax Foundation both concluded that almost all of the tax increases proposed by Clinton would fall on the top 10 percent of taxpayers. Hardest hit would be the less than 0.1 percent of taxpayers who earn more than $5 million per year. “Nearly all of the tax increases would fall on the top 1 percent; the bottom 95 percent of taxpayers would see little or no change in their taxes,” the Tax Policy Center concluded.

Clinton, meanwhile, claimed Trump’s plan, “would end up raising taxes on middle class families, millions of middle class families.” An analysis by New York University School of Law professor Lily L. Batchelder found that Trump’s plan “would actually significantly raise taxes for millions of low- and middle-income families with children, with especially large tax increases for working single parents.” In all, the report estimated Trump’s plan would increase taxes for about 7.8 million families with children who are minors, or roughly 25 million individuals. But the Tax Foundation told us that while it was able to replicate those results, its full analysis of Trump’s plan found that, on average, middle income taxpayers would get a tax cut. “As our distributional tables show, the typical middle class family would get a net tax cut of several hundred dollars,” Alan Cole, an economist with the Tax Foundation, told us. “Simply put, the middle class as a whole would see a tax reduction, but some middle class families would see a tax increase.”

The two also sparred over the so-called carried interest loophole. Trump, who proposes to close it, incorrectly said Clinton wants to keep it.

“Hillary Clinton has friends that want all of these provisions, including the carried interest provision, which is very important to Wall Street people,” Trump said. “But they really want the carried interest provision, which I believe Hillary Clinton is leaving and it’s very interesting why she is leaving carried interest.”

According to her tax plan, Clinton wants to close “the ‘carried interest’ loophole that allows hedge fund, private equity, and other Wall Street money managers to avoid paying ordinary income rates on their earnings.” Trump has also proposed this.

Clinton noted that she has been in favor of getting rid of this loophole since she was a senator from New York. While it is true that Clinton came out against carried interest during her tenure in the Senate, she was the last of the Democratic presidential candidates in 2007 to do so.

‘Birther’ Repeats
Trump again pushed the idea that Clinton’s 2008 presidential campaign had started the false rumor that Obama was not born in the U.S. and was ineligible to be president. Trump wrongly claimed that Clinton’s campaign manager said “exactly that” on television recently.

Trump: Well, you owe the president an apology, because as you know very well, your campaign, Sidney Blumenthal — he’s another real winner that you have — and he’s the one that got this started, along with your campaign manager, and they were on television just two weeks ago, she was saying exactly that.

Trump is wrong about Patti Solis Doyle, Clinton’s 2008 campaign manager. Solis Doyle has said that a “rogue volunteer coordinator” in Iowa was immediately fired when the campaign found out that the aide forwarded an email promoting the birther conspiracy.

And Solis Doyle said that she did apologize to Obama campaign manager David Plouffe for the incident. “This was not the kind of campaign we wanted to run,” she said she told Plouffe.

As for Blumenthal, he has denied a claim made by McClatchy’s former bureau chief James Asher that Blumenthal, a senior adviser to Clinton’s 2008 campaign, encouraged McClatchy to chase the story of Obama’s birth.

Shashank Bengali, who now works at the Los Angeles Times, said Asher told him to “look into everything about Obama’s family in Kenya,” according to Politico. Asher gave Politico an email that he received from Bengali that said, “I can’t recall if we specifically discussed the birther claim, but I’m sure that was part of what I researched.”

Other than that, there is no clear evidence to support Asher’s account.

Obamacare Claims
Trump used an old GOP scare tactic, wrongly claiming that Clinton wanted to implement a government-run, “single-payer,” health care system, like Canada’s. He also cherry-picked high proposed premium increases in the exchanges, and he said that the law should be replaced with “something absolutely much less expensive,” when repealing the law is expected to increase federal deficits.

We’ll start with the single-payer claim.

Trump: She wants to go to a single-payer plan … somewhat similar to Canada. … But she wants to go to single payer, which means the government basically rules everything.

Clinton supports making Medicare available to those over age 55, and creating a “public option,” or a federal insurance plan, that would compete with private plans on the ACA exchanges. She hasn’t called for a single-payer system.

Before the Affordable Care Act was passed, Republicans repeatedly warned of a government takeover of health care. But the ACA didn’t do that — instead, it built upon, and expanded, private insurance as well as Medicaid.

Earlier versions of the legislation contained a “public option,” or a federal insurance plan that would be offered, along with private insurance, on the ACA exchanges, where people who buy their own insurance can get coverage. Republicans claimed this public option would eventually lead to a Canadian- or British-style system of complete government-funded, universal health care. As we wrote at the time, the impact of the public option would depend on how it was structured. But one of the final versions of the House bill would have led to about 6 million Americans joining the public plan, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.

The public option wasn’t included in the final bill that President Obama signed into law.

But what had been proposed before still wasn’t anywhere near “single-payer,” a system in which everyone would have health coverage provided by the government.

During the Democratic primary campaign, it was Sen. Bernie Sanders, not Clinton, who called for a single-payer system. Clinton criticized that idea, saying early this year, “I don’t believe number one we should be starting over. We had enough of a fight to get to the Affordable Care Act.”

Trump also cherry-picked high proposed premium increases on the ACA exchanges, as he has done before, saying “your health insurance … is going up by numbers that are astronomical, 68 percent, 59 percent, 71 percent.”

It’s true that some insurers have requested high rate increases for 2017 premiums on the exchanges. Any increase above 10 percent has to be submitted and approved by government regulators for the next open enrollment period, which begins Nov. 1. But other plans have proposed decreases.

The Kaiser Family Foundation analyzed preliminary rates in cities in 16 states and Washington, D.C., and found the second-lowest cost silver plan would increase by a weighted average of 9 percent from this year if the rates hold. The change in premiums would vary widely — from a drop of 13 percent in Providence, Rhode Island, to a hike of 25 percent in Nashville. That’s higher than the increase for 2016, which was only 2 percent for those areas.

Also, 80 percent of those buying exchange plans get federal subsidies, which lower premium contributions to a percentage of their income.

As for employer-based insurance plans, where most insured Americans get their coverage, those premiums have been rising at historical low rates for the past several years.

Finally, Trump said that the ACA is “unbelievably expensive for our country. … We have to repeal it and replace it with something absolutely much less expensive.” But the CBO and Joint Committee on Taxation’s latest estimates on the impact of repealing the law find doing away with it would likely increase federal deficits over the 2016-2025 time period. While there is uncertainty in such estimates, CBO and JCT say, their “best estimate is that repealing the ACA would increase federal budget deficits by $137 billion over that 10-year period.”

Obamacare Boast
Clinton went too far in touting the benefits of the ACA, saying that a provision to allow young adults to stay on their parents plans until age 26 was “something that didn’t happen before.” In fact, at least 31 states already had similar provisions before the law was enacted.

Clinton: But everybody else, the 170 million of us who get health insurance through our employers got big benefits. Number one, insurance companies can’t deny you coverage because of a preexisting condition. Number two, no lifetime limits, which is a big deal if you have serious health problems.

Number three, women can’t be charged more than men for our health insurance, which is the way it used to be before the Affordable Care Act. Number four, if you’re under 26, and your parents have a policy, you can be on that policy until the age of 26, something that didn’t happen before.

All of the provisions she rattled off were indeed part of the ACA. And it’s true that the law extended policies nationwide allowing young adults under age 26 to remain on their parents’ plans. That provision took effect in September 2010. But 31 states had similar measures in effect before then, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.

“Before implementation of the ACA, at least 31 states required carriers to extend coverage to young adults,” the NCSL states. “The age at which insurers were no longer required to provide coverage to young adults under their guardians’ plans varied by state. Additionally, some states required certain conditions to be met by young adults in order to be eligible for coverage under their guardians’ plans. For example, a number of states required that young adults be unmarried in order to qualify.”

Some states went beyond age 26. In New York and Pennsylvania, unmarried young adults could remain on their parents’ policies until age 30, and New Jersey extended that to age 31.

Clinton also said that insurance companies “can’t deny you coverage because of a preexisting condition.” To be clear, before the ACA, employer-provided plans could exclude coverage of the preexisting condition temporarily, for up to a year. If a new employee had continuous coverage previously, with a gap in coverage no longer than 63 days, that employee was granted a waiver for that exclusion period, equal to the time spent on the previous plan.

‘600 Requests for Help’?
Trump said that “Ambassador [Chris] Stevens sent 600 requests for help” before he was killed in an attack on the U.S. diplomatic post in Benghazi, Libya, in September 2012. But as the Washington Post Fact Checker reported, not all 600 came from Stevens, nor were they all requests for security upgrades, as it may have appeared to those watching or listening to the debate.

The total refers to the “cumulative number of security requests/concerns from Benghazi – 2012,” according to a chart the House Select Committee on Benghazi showed during a congressional hearing in October 2015. And “requests” and “concerns” are not the same thing, the Fact Checker said.

From its report:

Washington Post Fact Checker, Jan. 26: “A request is made via email or cable for physical security, equipment, or something related to the compound itself (lighting, barriers, wire, etc),” a GOP congressional staff member explained. “Weeks or months later, the same unresolved issue is brought up again in a discussion. That’s a request and a concern. In general, concerns followed requests. However, some concerns are independent of a request. Such concerns could, for example, be expressed about the delay of issuing visas to DS agents kept out of Libya. Concerns could be expressed about security personnel needing to provide their own holsters or protective gear, etc.”

Requests, meanwhile, were about any specific security-related need in Benghazi. A request for hundreds of sandbags would count as one request.

However, officials could not say how many of the 600 were security requests and how many were concerns.

Also, the State Department Accountability Review Board, which did call U.S. security in Benghazi “inadequate” prior to the attack, noted in its report that the agency made several security upgrades in 2012. So at least some of the security issues raised by officials were addressed, which may not have been clear from Trump’s statement.

The Red Line
Trump and Clinton had a disagreement over President Obama’s failure to back up his threat to use military force if Syrian President Bashar Assad used chemical weapons against his own people.

Trump said Clinton “was there as secretary of state with the so-called line in the sand,” referring to Obama’s threat that Assad’s use of chemical weapons would cross “a red line for us.” Obama made that remark in August 2012 in response to a question about whether he “envision[ed] using U.S. military” in Syria.

Clinton interrupted Trump and claimed that she was not in office.

Trump: First of all, she was there as secretary of state with the so-called line in the sand, which …

Clinton: No, I wasn’t. I was gone. I hate to interrupt you, but at some point …

Trump: OK. But you were in contact — excuse me. You were …

Clinton: At some point, we need to do some fact-checking here.

Trump: You were in total contact with the White House, and perhaps, sadly, Obama probably still listened to you. I don’t think he would be listening to you very much anymore.

It’s not really clear if Trump was criticizing Obama for making the threat or not following through on it, because Clinton interrupted him. But the fact is, Clinton was in office when Obama made his threat in August 2012, but not when the president defended his failure to back it up in September 2013. Clinton was secretary of state from January 2009 to February 2013.

Obama has been criticized for not following through on his threat, so perhaps Clinton quickly interrupted Trump to distance herself from Obama’s decision not to take action. However, she did publicly support that decision even though she was no longer in office.

On Sept. 9, 2013, Clinton said a “political solution” is in the best interests of the U.S. “I will continue to support his efforts and I hope that the Congress will as well,” she said.

Income Exaggeration
Clinton repeated a campaign talking point that overstates income inequality.

Clinton: It’s been unfortunate, but it’s happened, that since the Great Recession the gains have all gone to the top and we need to reverse that.

“All” of the income gains since the Great Recession haven’t gone to the top.

Clinton usually says that 90 percent of the income gains have gone to the top 1 percent. And that was the case, at least according to the work of economist Emmanuel Saez of the University of California, Berkeley, based on preliminary 2013 data. But that talking point is now outdated.

Saez’s most recent figures show that the top 1 percent of families captured 52 percent of the income growth from 2009 to 2015. That’s also the case for 1993-2015.

He wrote in his June 30, 2016, report: “In 2014 and especially in 2015, the incomes of bottom 99% families have finally started recovering in earnest from the losses of the Great Recession. By 2015, real incomes of bottom 99% have now recovered about two thirds of the losses experienced during the Great Recession from 2007 to 2009. Top 1% families still capture 52% of total real income growth per family from 2009-2015 (Table 1) but the recovery from the Great Recession now looks much less lopsided than in previous years.”

Reporting Terrorists
In stressing that Muslims need to notify the police of wrongdoing in their communities, Trump claimed without evidence that “many people saw the bombs all over the apartment of the two people that killed 14 and wounded many, many people” in San Bernardino last year.

As we have written, a neighbor reportedly had noticed packages being delivered to the San Bernardino home of the shooters, and told a friend that the couple was doing a lot of work in their garage. The friend said the neighbor did not want to racially profile the couple, so she did not report it. Another worker in the neighborhood reported seeing well-dressed Middle Eastern men walking from the house to lunch several times, which the worker said he thought was unusual but also did not report.

But in neither case did anyone report that they had seen “bombs all over the floor” of the couple’s home, and failed to report it to authorities.

Trump made the same claim about the San Bernardino case after a mass shooting in June at a gay night club in Orlando. At that time, Trump said “Muslims are the ones that have to report him,” referring to the Orlando shooter, Omar Mateen. However, Mohammed A. Malik contacted the FBI in 2014 after he learned that Mateen had been watching videotapes of Anwar al-Awlaki, a radical Yemen-based imam. The FBI confirmed Malik’s story, the Washington Post wrote.

Still More Repeats
And it was Groundhog Day for fact-checkers on several other topics:

Nuclear weapons: Clinton exaggerated when she said she was responsible for getting “a treaty with Russia to lower nuclear weapons.” The New START agreement, which Clinton helped negotiate, caps the number of nuclear weapons that Russia and the U.S. can deploy on long-range (or strategic) launchers at 1,550. But, as we wrote, it does not require either side to destroy any nuclear weapons or reduce their nuclear stockpile, and it doesn’t place limits on shorter-range nuclear weapons. Also, Russia was below the limit for deployed strategic nuclear warheads when the treaty took effect in 2011, and it has increased them since then. As of Sept. 1, Russia had 1,796 deployed strategic nuclear warheads — up from 1,537 deployed warheads in February 2011, according to the Department of State.

Libya, Iraq and ISIS: Trump once again criticized Clinton for “bad judgments on Libya, on Syria, on Iraq. I mean, her and Obama, whether you like it or not, the way they got out of Iraq, the vacuum they’ve left, that’s why ISIS formed in the first place.” Trump conveniently leaves out that he posted a YouTube video in February 2011 voicing support for U.S. intervention in Libya to remove Moammar Gadhafi from power, and that he told CNN in a 2007 interview that the U.S. should “declare victory [in Iraq] and leave … [T]his is a total catastrophe and you might as well get out now, because you just are wasting time.” And finally Trump pins too much blame for the rise in ISIS — whose origin dates back to the Bush administration — on the troop withdrawal (an issue we explored in length in our story, “Trump’s False Obama-ISIS Link.”)

Libyan oil: It’s been half a year, and Trump is still making the false claim that “ISIS has a good chunk” of Libyan oil fields. We first flagged this statement in April, when an expert on Libya’s oil operations told us there’s no evidence that the Islamic State has control of any oil fields in that country.

Trade deficit: As he did during the first presidential debate, Trump wrongly claimed that last year the U.S. had “an almost $800 billion trade deficit.” Trump is referring to the trade deficit for goods, which was $762.6 billion in 2015, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. But the U.S. had a $262.2 billion trade surplus in services, including intellectual property such as software, for a net trade deficit in goods and services of $500.4 billion last year.

NAFTA: Trump said that the North American Free Trade Agreement was “signed by her husband,” referring to President Bill Clinton. As we have written, NAFTA was negotiated and signed by President George H.W. Bush. Clinton signed the implementing legislation. Trump also said the trade agreement had “stripped us” of manufacturing jobs. A 2015 report from the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service called the net impact “relatively modest,” saying “NAFTA did not cause the huge job losses feared by the critics or the large economic gains predicted by supporters.”

Iraq War: Trump repeated that he “was against the war in Iraq” and claimed that this “has not been debunked.” But we have found no evidence that he was against the Iraq War before it began. At the first debate, Trump cited as evidence “numerous conversations” that he privately had with Sean Hannity of Fox News. He also has cited a January 2003 TV interview with Fox News’ Neil Cavuto. In the TV interview, Trump told Cavuto that President Bush needed to make a decision on Iraq. “Either you attack or you don’t attack,” he says. But he offered no opinion on what Bush should do. There is simply no public record of Trump opposing the war before it started.

Clinton on coal: Trump claimed that “Clinton wants to put all the [coal] miners out of business.” At a CNN town hall forum in March, Clinton said she wants to “move away from coal,” and that in the shift to renewable energy production “we’re going to put a lot of coal miners and coal companies out of business.” But she added, “We don’t want to forget those people.” And she promised to bring renewable energy jobs to coal country to replace lost coal jobs. Clinton reiterated that position in the debate, saying she “supports moving toward more clean, renewable energy as quickly as we can. … But I also want to be sure we do not leave people behind. That is why I am the only candidate, from the very beginning of this campaign, who had a plan to help us revitalize coal country.”

Sources
Auxier, Richard, Burman, Len, Nunns, Jim and Rohaly, Jeff. “An Analysis of Hillary Clinton’s Tax Proposal.” Tax Policy Center. 03 Mar 2016.

Pomerleau, Kyle and Schuyler, Michael. “Details and Analysis of Hillary Clinton’s Tax Proposals.” Tax Foundation. 26 Jan 2016.

Batchelde, Lily L. “Families Facing Tax Increases Under Trump’s Latest Tax Plan.” New York University School of Law.” New York University School of Law. 24 Sep 2016.

Cole, Alan. “Details and Analysis of the Donald Trump Tax Reform Plan, September 2016.” Tax Foundation. 19 Sep 2016.

Hillary Clinton Campaign Website. “Investing in America by Restoring Basic Fairness to Our Tax Code.”

Donald Trump Campaign Website. “Tax Plan.” accessed 10 Oct 2016.

Dealbook. “Clinton Jumps Into Carried-Interest Debate.” New York Times. 13 Jul 2007.

YouTube.com. “From The Desk Of Donald Trump.” 28 Feb 2011.

CNN Transcripts. “Situation Room: Donald Trump Interview.” 16 Mar 2007.

Robertson, Lori and Kiely, Eugene. “Trump’s False Obama-ISIS Link.” FactCheck.org. 11 Aug 2016.

CNN Pressroom. “Full Rush Transcript Hillary Clinton Part/CNN TV One Democratic Presidential Town Hall.” 13 Mar 2016.

Homeland Security Website. “Joint Statement from the Department Of Homeland Security and Office of the Director of National Intelligence on Election Security.” 07 Oct 2016.

Wang, Christine. “US officially blames Russia for political hacking attempts.” CNBC. 07 Oct 2016.

Trump, Donald. “Did Crooked Hillary help disgusting (check out sex tape and past) Alicia M become a U.S. citizen so she could use her in the debate?” Twitter.com. 30 Sept 2016.

U.S. Energy Information Administration. “Monthly Energy Review; Table 1.1 Primary Energy Overview.” 27 Sep 2016.

U.S. Energy Information Administration. “Monthly Energy Review; Table 3.3a Petroleum Trade: Overview.” 27 Sep 2016.

U.S. Energy Information Administration. “U.S. Imports from Persian Gulf Countries of Crude Oil and Petroleum Products (Thousand Barrels per Day).” Data accessed 10 Oct 2016.

HRC Paid Speeches.” Email message addressed to John Podesta and others, obtained by Wikileaks. Dated 25 Jan 2016, posted 7 Oct 2016.

National Conference of State Legislators. “Dependent Health Coverage and Age for Healthcare Benefits.” 1 Apr 2016.

Robertson, Lori. “What’s Romney’s Plan for Preexisting Conditions?” FactCheck.org. 11 Oct 2012.

Robertson, Lori. “The ‘Government-Run’ Mantra.” FactCheck.org. 6 Nov 2009.

Robertson, Lori. “Clinton’s Attack on Sanders’ Health Plan.” FactCheck.org. 15 Jan 2016.

Clinton, Hillary. Issues: Health Care. accessed 10 Oct 2016.

Cox, Cynthia. “Analysis of 2017 Premium Changes and Insurer Participation in the Affordable Care Act’s Health Insurance Marketplaces.” Kaiser Family Foundation. 28 Jul 2016.

Kessler, Glenn. “600 ‘requests’ from Benghazi for better security: What this statistic really means.” Washington Post Fact Checker. 26 Jan 2015.

Statement by FBI Director James B. Comey on the Investigation of Secretary Hillary Clinton’s Use of a Personal E-Mail System.” FBI. 5 Jul 2016. ”

Gass, Nick. “FBI director says he’s no longer a registered Republican.” Politico. 7 Jul 2016.

Kiely, Eugene. “A Guide to Clinton’s Emails.” FactCheck.org. 5 Jul 2016.

Kiely, Eugene. “Trump, Pence ‘Acid Wash’ Facts.” FactCheck.org. 8 Sep 2016.

Remarks by the President to the White House Press Corps.” White House. 20 Aug 2012.

Remarks by President Obama and Prime Minister Reinfeldt of Sweden in Joint Press Conference.” FactCheck.org. 4 Sep 2016.

Goodenough, Patrick. “Ex-CIA Chief Felt ‘Embarrassment’ When Obama Backed Away From ‘Red Line’ in Syria.” CNSNews.com. 2 May 2014.

Walshe, Shushannah. “Hillary Clinton Supports White House on Syria.” ABC News. 9 Sep 2013.

Hillary Clinton: ‘I Continue To Support” Obama’s Efforts On Syria.’” Real Clear Politics. 9 Sep 2016.

Kiely, Eugene, et al. “FactChecking the First Debate.” FactCheck.org. 27 Sep 2016.

Robertson, Lori, and Kiely, Eugene. “Trump’s False Obama-ISIS Link.” FactCheck.org. 11 Aug 2016.

Gore, D’Angelo, et al. “Trump’s Foreign Policy Speech.” FactCheck.org. 28 Apr 2016.

Kiely, Eugene, et al. “Trump’s Attack on Clinton’s Character.” FactCheck.org. 22 Jun 2016.

Kiely, Eugene. “Donald Trump and the Iraq War.” FactCheck.org. 19 Feb 2016.

Robertson, Lori, et al. “GOP Convention, Day 2.” FactCheck.org. 20 Jul 2016.

Kiely, Eugene, et al. “Donald Trump on Orlando Shooting.” FactCheck.org. 14 Jun 2016.

Saez, Emmanuel. “Striking it Richer: The Evolution of Top Incomes in the United States.” 30 Jun 2016.

Robertson, Lori. “Clinton’s Attack on Sanders’ Health Plan.” FactCheck.org. 15 Jan 2016.

Farley, Robert. “Trump on the Stump.” FactCheck.org. 28 Sep 2016.

Nathans, Ilana. “Clinton’s 1975 Rape Case.” FactCheck.org. 17 Jun 2016.

Kiely, Eugene. “The FBI Files on Clinton’s Emails.” FactCheck.org. 7 Sep 2016.
 

marke

Well-Known Member
factcheck.org , Geoffrey Cowan , president of the Annenberg Foundation Trust , 50yr democratic activist ........ another huge donor to factcheck.org would be Pierre Omidyar, who also was a huge nevertrump pac donor ........ the stanton foundation , Frank Stanton , CBS news ..........all these people have been using their wealth for years to decades to influence politics in the united states ...... your source list reads like roll call at a never trump rally , i assume politico ,and factcheck.org comprise most of it ??????

it can be kept really simple , read or listen too the interview with hillary on the rape case , there is no conjecture involved in that , it was done in 1980 when everything was fresh in her mind ..............

http://transcriptsblog.tumblr.com/post/151443021807/roy-reeds-1980-interview-with-hillary-clinton

the uranium one deal , the lead department is not known . the state department is the most politically powerful agency in the cfius . hillary is the most politically powerful member ...... uranium one was sold to the russian government , whom i'm told by the news is trying to destroy our country ......... btw , the most important part of the uranium one deal was the kazakhstan uranium mines ....... ian telfer donated money before ,during and after the uranium one deal to the clinton foundation , millions of dollars ...........
the canadian clinton foundation ,a clinton giustra collaboration is probably just as shady as the clinton foundation itself , just some way to hide donors and money ....... surprising you would use "clinton cash" as a reputable source , can i ????????
 

Bailey's Mom

Super Moderator
Super Moderator
Taking a piece out of my previous post:

"Some Republican lawmakers in 2010 did raise concerns about the deal — but they sent their letter to then-Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner. (Treasury chairs the CFIUS.) Final approval was given by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which noted that the mines would remain under the control of U.S. subsidiaries. “Neither Uranium One nor ARMZ [the Russian firm] holds an NRC export license, so no uranium produced at either facility may be exported,” the NRC said. (Some uranium yellowcake is extracted, processed in Canada and returned to the United States.)"

GET IT? GOT IT? GOOD!

And another piece from your post above. " it can be kept really simple , read or listen too the interview with hillary on the rape case , there is no conjecture involved in that , it was done in 1980 when everything was fresh in her mind".

So, the reporter who did the interview, his view means nothing?

[Update: Reed in an interview published Oct. 12 denied that Clinton was laughing at Shelton. “As far as her laughing, God knows she was not laughing over the notion that this rapist was going to go free," said Reed. “I challenge any fair-minded reader of that transcript to make a case that Hillary Rodham was a coldblooded lawyer who was laughing over the plight of
the 12-year-old rape victim,"]

Reed's words should ring like a clarion bell in your ears! "I challenge any fair-minded reader of that transcript to make a case that Hillary Rodham was a coldblooded lawyer who was laughing over the plight of the 12-year-old rape victim,"]

AGAIN, A "FAIR-MINDED READER OF THE TRANSCRIPT...."

She laughed at how her believe in lie detectors had forever been shaken. She believed he was guilty...The Machine Didn't Pick Up His Lies. She laughed not at the victim, but at how her previous belief in the use of lie detectors had forever been shaken. It didn't change that she had the obligation to give him the best defense she could muster.

I'd guess that's why they aren't legal in many States and, of course, in Canada. They can be beaten. They are a tool, but they aren't a "smoking gun."

She laughed at her own hubris in suggesting to the Prosecutor and the Court that she could have a specialist brought in from New York to attack the DNA findings. The Court and the Prosecutor bought it. SHE WAS BLUFFING. She laughed at her youthful self playing hard ball with the big boys.

Her laughter had nothing to do with that child. You are just wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.

As for the use of "Clinton Cash", the reporters that tore that book apart quoted from that book while making their investigations and finding the conclusions to be wrong. Now, that is simple.

And tell me, if all of my sources are wrong, WHO DO YOU PUT YOUR FAITH IN. You've used some of those sources when they served you. At this point, it appears that you don't believe in anyone unless their research and conjectures match your locked in iron beliefs. Hey, I don't like it when my dearly held beliefs are crushed by reality, but I take it on the chin like a good little soldier. If I believe that someone...some politician is perfect and someone knocks him/her off their pedestal, why wouldn't I accept that (after I have properly cross-referenced and proved their assertions.) I'd rather know about their dirty, double dealings than hide my head in the sand.
 

Nik

Well-Known Member
Taking a piece out of my previous post:

"Some Republican lawmakers in 2010 did raise concerns about the deal — but they sent their letter to then-Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner. (Treasury chairs the CFIUS.) Final approval was given by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which noted that the mines would remain under the control of U.S. subsidiaries. “Neither Uranium One nor ARMZ [the Russian firm] holds an NRC export license, so no uranium produced at either facility may be exported,” the NRC said. (Some uranium yellowcake is extracted, processed in Canada and returned to the United States.)"

GET IT? GOT IT? GOOD!

And another piece from your post above. " it can be kept really simple , read or listen too the interview with hillary on the rape case , there is no conjecture involved in that , it was done in 1980 when everything was fresh in her mind".

So, the reporter who did the interview, his view means nothing?

[Update: Reed in an interview published Oct. 12 denied that Clinton was laughing at Shelton. “As far as her laughing, God knows she was not laughing over the notion that this rapist was going to go free," said Reed. “I challenge any fair-minded reader of that transcript to make a case that Hillary Rodham was a coldblooded lawyer who was laughing over the plight of
the 12-year-old rape victim,"]

Reed's words should ring like a clarion bell in your ears! "I challenge any fair-minded reader of that transcript to make a case that Hillary Rodham was a coldblooded lawyer who was laughing over the plight of the 12-year-old rape victim,"]

AGAIN, A "FAIR-MINDED READER OF THE TRANSCRIPT...."

She laughed at how her believe in lie detectors had forever been shaken. She believed he was guilty...The Machine Didn't Pick Up His Lies. She laughed not at the victim, but at how her previous belief in the use of lie detectors had forever been shaken. It didn't change that she had the obligation to give him the best defense she could muster.

I'd guess that's why they aren't legal in many States and, of course, in Canada. They can be beaten. They are a tool, but they aren't a "smoking gun."

She laughed at her own hubris in suggesting to the Prosecutor and the Court that she could have a specialist brought in from New York to attack the DNA findings. The Court and the Prosecutor bought it. SHE WAS BLUFFING. She laughed at her youthful self playing hard ball with the big boys.

Her laughter had nothing to do with that child. You are just wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.

As for the use of "Clinton Cash", the reporters that tore that book apart quoted from that book while making their investigations and finding the conclusions to be wrong. Now, that is simple.

And tell me, if all of my sources are wrong, WHO DO YOU PUT YOUR FAITH IN. You've used some of those sources when they served you. At this point, it appears that you don't believe in anyone unless their research and conjectures match your locked in iron beliefs. Hey, I don't like it when my dearly held beliefs are crushed by reality, but I take it on the chin like a good little soldier. If I believe that someone...some politician is perfect and someone knocks him/her off their pedestal, why wouldn't I accept that (after I have properly cross-referenced and proved their assertions.) I'd rather know about their dirty, double dealings than hide my head in the sand.

The accusations of Hillary regarding the rape case she had to work on in her youth is one of the accusations towards her that make me angriest. She has fought long and hard for families and women through her life. I have read so many individual and personal accounts of ways Hillary personally helped women. But of course that stuff isn't nearly as attention grabbing as anything that can be twisted into a possible scandal and it certainly doesn't serve the narrative that women in power are unnatural and evil. We, as a society, don't lift up or celebrate powerful women. We try to tear them down. As a woman who struggles for recognition at work. Who watches male colleagues promoted quickly while she has to fight and scrap for every bit of advancement. As a woman who works in a "boys club" atmosphere. As a woman who recognizes that everyone around me with any power is a man. As a woman who is constantly condescended to and patronized, who has her suggestions ignored only to have the same suggestion made by a male colleague celebrated and congratulated... I live it. And I'm in California where we are suppose to be more liberal and more equal. I shudder to think how it is in other places. So when Hillary took that case as a young woman struggling to make a name. I get it. She didn't want to take it. She spoke to the judge. But, you know what if it was my career and I was faced with that choice knowing the odds and how difficult it is as a woman to succeed I would have done the same. I would have swallowed my own disgust with the whole thing and done the best I could. And btw the laughing. Ya that was ironic laughing. That was not gleeful happy laughing. That was laughing at the sad state of things. Oh and btw when a man defends criminals of the most horrible sort they aren't looked down on. We don't vilify them. We understand they have a job to do and that they have to do it. But God forbid a woman should ever put career ahead of moral conviction or anything else. As a woman I am expected to put career last. And the fact that I won't is seen as a fault. Why on earth did Hillary have to talk visibly about her grandkid. We didn't expect the male candidates to prattle on about babies in their lives. It disgusts me that we have this double standard. But, We certainly can't have women forgetting their place now can we? Part of me hopes that when I have children I don't have a girl because I know what they face. I know how much harder life is for us. And part of me hopes I do so I can raise her to be a fighter. And should I have a boy. He will be taught to an ally to those who don't have the same opportunities he has and to fight for what is right as well.
 

marke

Well-Known Member
"Some Republican lawmakers in 2010 did raise concerns about the deal — but they sent their letter to then-Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner. (Treasury chairs the CFIUS.) Final approval was given by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which noted that the mines would remain under the control of U.S. subsidiaries. “Neither Uranium One nor ARMZ [the Russian firm] holds an NRC export license, so no uranium produced at either facility may be exported,” the NRC said. (Some uranium yellowcake is extracted, processed in Canada and returned to the United States.)"

GET IT? GOT IT? GOOD!



No , I’m not getting it ? the fact the senators raised concerns and sent a letterr , you’d think that in itself would have made it more than a “rubber stamp” deal ????????? something that called attention to the deal ????? like I said , I doubt the president wasn’t aware of this one …….. was your point that the treasury secretary is the chair of the cfius ????? what would be the point of that point



So, the reporter who did the interview, his view means nothing?

Hearing it means more to me than this guys view of her mindset 36 years later……… he most likely likes Hillary , he may have voted for her and would have liked to see her elected president ???





Reed's words should ring like a clarion bell in your ears! "I challenge any fair-minded reader of that transcript to make a case that Hillary Rodham was a coldblooded lawyer who was laughing over the plight of the 12-year-old rape victim,"]

AGAIN, A "FAIR-MINDED READER OF THE TRANSCRIPT...."


What is it you think she laughed about after saying “Well this guy’s ready to come from New York to prevent this miscarriage of justice!”

My guess would be she was laughing at how badly the prosecution botched the case , losing evidence is pretty inept , kind of a sad way to get a guilty rapist off , probably she found that amusing ??




She laughed at how her believe in lie detectors had forever been shaken. She believed he was guilty...The Machine Didn't Pick Up His Lies. She laughed not at the victim, but at how her previous belief in the use of lie detectors had forever been shaken. It didn't change that she had the obligation to give him the best defense she could muster. She laughed at her own hubris in suggesting to the Prosecutor and the Court that she could have a specialist brought in from New York to attack the DNA findings. The Court and the Prosecutor bought it. SHE WAS BLUFFING. She laughed at her youthful self playing hard ball with the big boys.

She sure did find a lot about the case amusing ….. problem with your source on the dna expert though , this case was probably a decade before the development of the technology to dna profile ????? that might be fake news ?????

I’m thinking losing the evidence might have been the biggest reason for the plea deal ….. some of your links ?? I’m not sure if you read them , but the interview with the girls lawyer speaks horribly of Clinton ???? unless you think the blogger who’s writing the story has a better perspective of what happened than the girls lawyer ????? regardless snopes ain’t looking so good …………








As for the use of "Clinton Cash", the reporters that tore that book apart quoted from that book while making their investigations and finding the conclusions to be wrong. Now, that is simple.

And tell me, if all of my sources are wrong, WHO DO YOU PUT YOUR FAITH IN. You've used some of those sources when they served you. At this point, it appears that you don't believe in anyone unless their research and conjectures match your locked in iron beliefs. Hey, I don't like it when my dearly held beliefs are crushed by reality, but I take it on the chin like a good little soldier. If I believe that someone...some politician is perfect and someone knocks him/her off their pedestal, why wouldn't I accept that (after I have properly cross-referenced and proved their assertions.) I'd rather know about their dirty, double dealings than hide my head in the sand.


I seriously doubt I used cnn , politico , cnbc , snopes , msnbc , factcheck.org or much of the liberal owned and run media without them having first hand , factual and verifiable , unbiased sources , not to say they never do , they’re stuff always has some fact to it , they just are good at spinning them …… like I said there’s a lot more fake news than real news …………. I’d put my faith in something I personally can’t tie a bias too , doesn’t mean there isn’t one , but if there is I can’t see it ……. Sidney Blumenthal would have had great motivation to spread the obama birth thing on the down low at the time he was hillary’s campaign manager , years later when she ran for president again , he would also have had as great of a motivation to deny it …….. he is a Clinton lifelong friend ……….. never could make the connection how requiring you must be a natural born American citizen to be potus was racist ………
 
Status
Not open for further replies.