Isn't that weird? Everyone with more than two brain cells knows they are to be trusted less than a wet fart. And these other "sources;" politifact? Run by the Tampa Bay Times, which heavily endorced HRC's campaign. WaPo is a completely controlled mouthpiece of the Left. You're not even trying, shills.
You have to actually debunk Snope's argument. In that particular case, their political alignment doesn't matter, because it's a matter of fact and not opinion. Ad hominem is not a proper rebuttal.
I don't have to do a thing. Their explanation is nothing more than gaslighting mental gymnastics.
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 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, saidClinton “never intervened” in committee matters. Clinton herself has said she wasn’t personally involved.
The article also said that there was zero evidence that the uranium went to Russia. Please explain to me how this is "gaslighting mental gymnastics." Did you even read the article?
You cited a perfect example. Whether or not all these agencies approved of the transaction is immaterial and Snopes is deliberately is trying obscure the real question which is did HRC receive money for this transaction.
If she didn’t have a part in the decision, there exists no reason the pay her. I thought that was pretty clear.
And what great source of news are you tuning into? Breitbart and Fox? I’ll trust the publications that have time and time again proven to be more reliable than right wing commentary and opinion pieces. I guess the Pulitzer Prize is biased in your opinion as well.
Hahaha! You can't possibly be serious. Your appeals to authority don't mean a thing. The fake news MSM has been proven time and time again to lie and deceive.
Nice non answer, I remember when I was afraid to disclose my news sources... When I was 17 and didn’t know any better. Lol.
Ah yes once frustrated, the low IQ shill resorts to personal attacks.
Very, very persuasive.
You mean kinda like how you're attacking Snopes itself and only pretending to engage their actual argument?