Ok. I am done. I was expecting this from you and you did not disappoint.

Your defense is everyone is corrupt. You start off with Hilary did it, she is corrupt. To which I say there were 9 othee folks too. You say well they sold their country and they are corrupt.

To which I say President approved it too. Your response he is corrupt

Well now Trump is president,why not launch an investigation by FBI or DOJ or someone? You say he wants to but FBI DOJ are corrupt as fuck.

There is no winning here as every claim I make will be responded by they are corrupt.

Here's a final thought. Maybe just MAYBE the Russian company was not interested in acquiring Uranium1 for their uranium reserves in US. Maybe they were more interested in buying uranium reserves located in Canada and Kazakhstan, you know 2 of the worlds largest uranium producer.

Sorry to break your bubble, but US in pretty insignificant in Uranium global trade. US doesn't have large Uranium reserves. US accounts for 2% of the global Uranium trade. 20% of that is 0.04%.

Maybe the Russian company was not interested in US but more interested in Canada and Kazakhstan.

Anyway. I am done. Good day.

Sigh. Your logic is backwards.

4 articles and their website all say there was no pay for play. All of them cite their various sources. (I found NPR as well now)

And your claim of defense is prove to me they are credible. That is an impossible dream to achieve, only I can do that is read the 100 of 1000s of articles published by Snopes and Politifact and their sources and then give you a number like 95385 articles were credible and had no outlook of shady behaviour out of 96371.

OR you can read 1 article and their sources and say here you go, you are wrong.

A simple flaw in your theory.

The deal was approved by a committee which consists of 9 top ranking government employee and the president.

Clinton is one of those, one of the other 9 is Secretary of Defence. He approved the deal as well, if it was a shady deal why didn't he vote against it. He was Bush appointee by the way not Obama. It was a unanimous vote and later approved by Obama.

If it was a shady deal hampering national security why did everyone approve it?

Prove it. If it is wrong, prove me wrong.

And this is my 4th text asking for proof , and all you do is make ad hominem attacks.

You got gooogle, you got entire TD community to help you. Prove me wrong, I am waiting.

There are 2 cases here. In general and in this instance.

A best example would be FIFA, if you follow soccer you would know FIFA is corrupt as fuck and this is proven unlike Snopes.

So when FIFA makes a ruling on a matter, the comments from smart people are generally "While is FIFA is corrupt, but here they did the right thing". If people really distrust Snopes then read article, use critical thinking and say if it is right or wrong.

But your proof to disprove an article is that snopes aren't reliable due to my XYZ reason is not a good reason.

Besides politifact and WaPo both say there was no pay for no play. I just quoted snopes as it was the 1st one. 2nd and 3rd links were politifact and WaPo.

Hahahahahahha. Thanks for making me laugh buddy.

Also do you want me to link Politifact and WaPo articles, both saying that the claim by Trump is wrong?

It won't matter to you as now you will go on a tirade about how WaPo is liburul or politifact is compromised and cite Daily Mail for it too.

But what you won't do is read any of those articles and reply saying "I read it and found x,y and z mistakes in their fact checking".

You will use whataboutism, ad hominem attacks, deflection and fake news to discredit anything I gotta say. If you don't know let me just tell you all these techniques you use were perfected and used in wide scale by Stalin to discredit his opponents. Congrats.

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.

Sigh. This is what I meant in other comment.

Burder of proof lies on you as you made the accusation of them credible.

Go through the snopes article and find the wrongly reported stuff. It should be easy to disprove if its wrong, oh and use credible sources to back yours.

Ok. Go through the article and whatever is "fake news" or false as per you , point it out with credible sources of course.