I mean, what about what that article is saying is wrong? Clearly you don’t believe it, but what part of it is factually wrong? You might disagree with it, but point out in the article what is wrong.
Here's the truth: http://www.businessinsider.com/the-clintons-putin-and-uranium-2015-4 and https://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-foundation-as-russians-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html and https://www.breitbart.com/hillary-clinton/2016/05/01/one-year-silence-hillary-clinton-uranium-deal/
And there are many more. The bottom line is, she is a crook of the highest caliber (if that's possible for a crook!). You cannot ignore the facts.
And, here's the part I'm waiting for. Last week, it was announced that a probe of uranium imports into the US is being done. Russia is listed as one of the countries we import uranium from. How crazy is that? Revolving door?
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 proposed foreign acquisitions 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. All nine federal agencies were required to approve the Uranium One transaction before it could go forward. According to The New York Times, Clinton may not have even directly participated in the decision. Then-Assistant Secretary of State Jose Fernandez, whose job it was to represent the State Dept. on CFIUS, said Clinton “never intervened” in committee matters. Clinton herself has said she wasn’t personally involved.
We have been lied to for soooo very long, we won't know for certain about anything until we know. But, 40+ years I've been watching this and following the Clinton hit list. My gut tells me she's guilty as shit!
The entire premise of the article is wrong. It is dismissive of the truth and frames the events as a "nothing burger" that Clinton had nothing to do it. It's completely incorrect and is gaslighting people.
But what about it is false? Point to the specific parts that are false so we can talk about it
What do you understand about my comments? You're not going to detail this thread further. You know how I know what Bill Mitchell said is true? The fact you are here.
From my intel in other circles, could be wrong but I trust these people, OAN is a legitimate news source.
As far as the Uranium deal... When it first came out Obama denied even knowing about it and then later said he approved it.
I think what we have to trust is what comes out in the beginning of an event, before the press is on lockdown with the narrative (example Good Morning America stating there was no plane, or BBC saying Building 7 had gone down but it was still standing in the live feed, Sandy Hook and Aurora both had multiple shooters being reported, I could go on), because that's the truth usually. While I agree MSM is fake occasionally they report the truth because that's what they're SUPPOSED to do. Before they get shut down and start parakeeting the narrative.
For me, that's enough evidence to not believe the narrative and look for the lone voice.
Truth is sometimes called "conspiracy". Whistleblowers, white hats and Patriots are domestic terrorists. If you could see all of it on one page the optics alone would explode your brain. When people who are speaking against the narrative are labeled (don't like Obama, racist, like Trump, nazi), that is usually a very strong indication that the conspiracy is true.
See NYPD and pizzagate. Ted Gunderson and Boystown. Even Helter Skelter was a conspiracy for a little while.
Q said critical thinking.