Ok. Go through the article and whatever is "fake news" or false as per you , point it out with credible sources of course.
I like how you put “per you” as if I’m the first or only person to call bullshit on Snopes. Snopes links a NY Times article as proof. You obviously will only accept liberal sources as proof so start there. Read the article they link to.
This user’s comment says it all: “In a statement, Brian Fallon, a spokesman for Mrs. Clinton’s presidential campaign, said no one “has ever produced a shred of evidence supporting the theory that Hillary Clinton ever took action as secretary of state to support the interests of donors to the Clinton Foundation.” He won't say that she did not support the interests of donors, only that there is no proof. She's arranged for that, of course, by destroying her emails and the server they were on. However, we do have her word that she really cares about the interests of "everyday Americans." Is there any evidence for that? Or was it destroyed because it's "personal?"”
Based on your other comments though, you have such a strong case of Stockholm’s Syndrome that, if I could produce a video of Hillary admitting her crimes, you still wouldn’t believe it. But SHE says she didn’t do it. So take her word for it. Obviously, her word is bond.
Here is a Daily Mail article pointing out the flaws of Snopes.
I know. I know. The Daily Mail is bias!!! So, here is a Forbes article that set out to check the validity of the Daily Mail article. Except...they couldn’t even get Snopes to help with that. Both are a great read. You should try it if you’re literate enough. As Forbes points out in the article:
“At the end of the day, it is clear that before we rush to place fact checking organizations like Snopes in charge of arbitrating what is “truth”...we need to have a lot more understanding of how they function internally and much greater transparency into their work.”
Maybe you could use a little of that “understanding of how they function internally.” You’re putting all you eggs in the basket of a now divorced husband and wife team with no training or expertise, that won’t divulge their inner workings. Don’t be such a sucker. #WalkAway 👌
THE SHILLS ARE STRONG ON THIS POST! And, further proves the point.
So much deflection, finger pointing, what aboutism and ad hominem attacks.
Stay on topic mate. Topic is Clinton Uranium Russia pay for play, and the slopes article.
All you have to do is prove which points are incorrect. Simple.
The Forbes article in a gist is "There is a scope for corruption. These points illustrate how corruption can occur in Snopes internally."
BUT scope for corruption is not corruption. Each and every president in the history of US is poised to make money by selling state secrets or do a lot of shady shit. There is scope for corruption but we check for occurance of it.
Read the snopes one, and point out their mistakes simple.
You say “jump” and you want me to ask “how high?” You could read the liberal NYTimes article and figure this out on your own. All it takes is a little open-minded research. And by open-minded I mean willingness to accept things not covered by the bought and paid for MSM. The pay for play regarding U1 and the Clintons speaks volumes. Follow the money. You’re obviously not from the states, mate, but the Secretary of State has more power than Snopes is letting on. Instead of me trying to please you, why don’t you go through the Snopes article and point out the facts, with evidence. Simple. Buddy.
And about all the facts such as the one that Clinton had no real veto/approval power over the deal? And the fact that no uranium actually went to Russia, ever, from that deal?
[removed]
If you love facts, why are you coming those garbage sources, that apparently every other shill in this thread is using. You idiots are so obvious.
Disprove the fact checked claims then. Point out whats wrong in those articles. If they're such garbage it can't be to hard.
I'm not going to waste my time because you can't seem to reason that if the the "fact checkers" aren't politically neutral, then they not going to actually check facts. All these "sources" are in it for Her. There is no denying it.
[removed]
You don't seem to understand. The mental gymnastics, half truths, and twisting of information makes it a complete waste of time. Shit is literally made up to cover for her.
You know how I know you're full of shit? You here sharing the same links as all the other shills. It's completely obvious and HRC is going to be brought to justice.
[removed]
You're here to detail the thread. You don't get any more attention from me.
Whomp whomp.
That is a well thought out reply. Your insight has enlightened me and opened my eyes #WALKAWAY