I can’t help but think it’s funny that the mainstream media are running articles about Fox News’ Shephard Smith stating he doesn’t agree that there is a Uranium One Scandal. I didn’t know they were so interested in what Fox News’ employees had to say?
First of all, Shepard is a unique individual and certainly has his own thoughts, which is something they allow at Fox News versus the group think at CNN and MSNBC. But his opinions don’t coincide with the DOJ who believes the scandal is worth investigating. If it were a cut and dry issue, they wouldn’t investigate. The mainstream media jumped on his comments but didn’t mention a thing about the great insight from the other anchors.
There’s a lot to the story and maybe Hillary and the Clinton Foundation will be exonerated, but what does common sense tell you about the following truths:
1) The brother of Hillary’s campaign manager (John Podesta), was the person hired by the Russians to make the Uranium deal happen.
2) The Clinton Foundation received around $150 million dollars from people who were associated with the deal. This was a record breaking contribution for the Clinton Foundation but they didn’t record it and when caught by outsiders, said it was an oversight.
3) No one has been able to share why the deal was good for the U.S. but it was clearly beneficial to the Clintons.
4) Why would we make a deal to give up uranium to a country who isn’t our ally? Actually, why would we even give it up to an ally?
5) Why won’t anyone share the information that was used to convince nine government agencies to accept the deal? There’s absolutely no reason why it would be top-secret. Democrats keep bringing it up that the State Department didn’t make the decision but how were the other agencies convinced to make the deal?
6) Why did contributions to the Clinton Foundation immediately dry up when Hillary lost the election?
All of the above are common sense observations and questions that an independent council will sort out. If I was on a jury and a prosecuting attorney shared this information regarding the defendant, I’d be inclined to vote guilty even if circumstantial, but that’s just me.
This is how it works in the private sector but as we’ve all seen, trying to indict someone in the public sector, especially a Clinton, is like trying to light a fire with a wet match. They are as slippery as a floor with motor oil on it so good luck to the DOJ, they’re going to need it.
First of all, Shepard is a unique individual and certainly has his own thoughts, which is something they allow at Fox News versus the group think at CNN and MSNBC. But his opinions don’t coincide with the DOJ who believes the scandal is worth investigating. If it were a cut and dry issue, they wouldn’t investigate. The mainstream media jumped on his comments but didn’t mention a thing about the great insight from the other anchors.
There’s a lot to the story and maybe Hillary and the Clinton Foundation will be exonerated, but what does common sense tell you about the following truths:
1) The brother of Hillary’s campaign manager (John Podesta), was the person hired by the Russians to make the Uranium deal happen.
2) The Clinton Foundation received around $150 million dollars from people who were associated with the deal. This was a record breaking contribution for the Clinton Foundation but they didn’t record it and when caught by outsiders, said it was an oversight.
3) No one has been able to share why the deal was good for the U.S. but it was clearly beneficial to the Clintons.
4) Why would we make a deal to give up uranium to a country who isn’t our ally? Actually, why would we even give it up to an ally?
5) Why won’t anyone share the information that was used to convince nine government agencies to accept the deal? There’s absolutely no reason why it would be top-secret. Democrats keep bringing it up that the State Department didn’t make the decision but how were the other agencies convinced to make the deal?
6) Why did contributions to the Clinton Foundation immediately dry up when Hillary lost the election?
All of the above are common sense observations and questions that an independent council will sort out. If I was on a jury and a prosecuting attorney shared this information regarding the defendant, I’d be inclined to vote guilty even if circumstantial, but that’s just me.
This is how it works in the private sector but as we’ve all seen, trying to indict someone in the public sector, especially a Clinton, is like trying to light a fire with a wet match. They are as slippery as a floor with motor oil on it so good luck to the DOJ, they’re going to need it.
RSS Feed