Jump to content
TGHusker

Investigation: Uranium Sale/DNC/Clintons

Recommended Posts

TGHusker    1,335
TGHusker    1,335

More from the Wall Street Journal

:snacks:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-coming-russia-bombshells-1509059214

The confirmation this week that Hillary Clinton’s campaign and the Democratic National Committee paid an opposition-research firm for a “dossier” on Donald Trump is bombshell news. More bombshells are to come.

The Fusion GPS saga isn’t over. The Clinton-DNC funding is but a first glimpse into the shady election doings concealed within that oppo-research firm’s walls. We now know where Fusion got some of its cash, but the next question is how the firm used it. With whom did it work beyond former British spy Christopher Steele ? Whom did it pay? Who else was paying it?

The answers are in Fusion’s bank records. Fusion has doggedly refused to divulge the names of its clients for months now, despite extraordinary pressure. So why did the firm suddenly insist that middleman law firm Perkins Coie release Fusion from confidentiality agreements, and spill the beans on who hired it?

 

Ending of the article

There’s plenty yet to come with regard to the DNC and the Clinton campaign. Every senior Democrat is disclaiming knowledge of the dossier deal, leaving Perkins Coie holding the bag. But while it is not unusual for law firms to hire opposition-research outfits for political clients, it is highly unusual for a law firm to pay bills without a client’s approval. Somewhere, Perkins Coie has documents showing who signed off on those bills, and they aren’t protected by attorney-client privilege.

Those names will matter, since someone at the DNC and at the Clinton campaign will need to explain how they somehow both forgot to list Fusion as a vendor in their campaign-finance filings. Some Justice Department lawyer is presumably already looking into whether this was a willful evasion, which can carry criminal penalties. It’s one thing to forget to list that local hot-dog supplier for the campaign picnic. It’s a little fishier when two entities both fail to list the firm that supplied them the most explosive hit job in a generation.

 

And there are still bombshells with regard to unmasking of Americans in surveilled communications. If the Steele dossier reports (which appear to date back to June 2016) were making their way into the hands of senior DNC and Clinton political operatives, you can bet they were making their way to the Obama White House. This may explain why Obama political appointees began monitoring the Trump campaign and abusing unmasking. They were looking for a “gotcha,” something to disqualify a Trump presidency. Of course, they were doing so on the basis of “salacious and unverified” accusations made by anonymous Russians, but never mind.

No, this probe of the Democratic Party’s Russian dalliance has a long, long way to go. And, let us hope, with revelations too big for even the media to ignore.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
NM11046    2,042

Silly question - why is it news to anyone that politicians who are running for office pay for opposition research?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
knapplc    19,301

It is symptomatic of the impaired thinking of American Conservatives that a thread like this is created, and added on to with more and more information, and not one thread has been created by anyone about the massacre of American troops in Niger.

 

You regurgitate the news you consume. It's all very clear who consumes what.

Edited by knapplc
I'm dumb

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TGHusker    1,335
2 hours ago, knapplc said:

It is symptomatic of the impaired thinking of American Conservatives that a thread like this is created, and added on to with more and more information, and not one thread has been created by anyone about the massacre of American troops in Niger.

 

You regurgitate the news you consume. It's all very clear who consumes what.

Knapp you are way off base.  Speaking of false equivalency. 

 

1. Your accusation that I as an American Conservative have symptomatic impaired thinking is beyond ridiculous. Why do you say that - because we, as conservatives, don't walk in 'lockstep' to your group thinking? 

2.  You should notice why I created the thread - because the topic was derailing the Trump Russian investigation thread

3.  You should also notice that I did not provide any personal opinion in starting this thread.

4. You should also notice that the links I started the discussion with are non-conservative links.  The WSJ opinion page could be called mildly conservative - I guess it was the 'more and more information'. 

5.  And why had you not created the thread on Niger by the way?  I did at your suggestion just now.   It is some type of 'impaired thinking' (your words) to think one needs to create another thread on a totally unrelated subject to somehow 'balance out' the other thread.  That comes across as saying that by adding a anti-clinton thread, I need an anti-trump thread or that I'm a pro-trump guy - which should be very apparent that I am not.  

6.  Your statement 'not one thread on Niger' (implication by conservatives since that is the subject of the long first sentence) could be flipped - why no threads on Clinton's by liberals on the issue I bring up.   When I say that, I'm not saying there is an equivalency between Trump and Clinton or between the OP and the Niger issue- not all of the info is out yet on any of this.  And the Niger issue is by far the worse deal.   One should be able to investigate and look into allegations of all issue at the same time - thus all should be fair game to discuss on a thread.   If you don't want to participate in that discussion - then don't. But there is no need to make false, disparaging attacks on the OP and on me that are without merit.

7. Your last statement is beyond belief.   So you know what I consume do you?   You must falsely believe I watch Fox News, Listen to Rush, and go to far right events.  You might note that most of my links come from non-conservative sources just to avoid such accusations.  Other than Newsmax which is a news re-aggitator and links to the original article (like NYT), I try to go more mainstream to avoid any such accusation - again - note the articles in my OP and the one that follows.    

8. Engage the topic instead  attacking the messenger.   Broad brush statement like this don't add to the topic.  Deal with your anger against conservatives (apparent anger - it just seems to come out that way. Only you know) . I'm not angry at liberals- I have good discussions wt many on this board.  We may not agree on solutions to issues but I understand we just have different avenues in trying to fix problems - that is not a bad thing - if people listen to each other we might find a solution somewhere in the middle.

9.  I could say what you normally say:  Link???   when you make a statement like this: It is symptomatic of the impaired thinking of American Conservatives    I didn't know there is symptomatic impaired thinking among conservatives. :dunno   Who did the study?

10. You are too good of a poster, board leader, and I respect your views too much ( I really do) to see you make broad brush attack posts like the one above. You are better than that. 

Edited by TGHusker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TGHusker    1,335

image.thumb.png.c7afc18aad63359ffc40d4190dacfff5.png

Knapp you posted this in the Trump Russian thread.  Thus it makes it all the more confusing why you attacked my thread on 1/2 of the Trump/Clinton take down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
knapplc    19,301

Because this Uranium One thing has been debunked and debunked and debunked and debunked.  It is not news.  See:

 

13 hours ago, funhusker said:

I really enjoyed this....

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fru    868

For your 9th Point TG. 

 

http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-conservative-believe-false-threats-20170202-story.html

 

"Slated for publication in the journal Psychological Science, the new study offers insight into why many Americans embraced fabricated stories about Hillary Clinton that often made outlandish allegations of criminal behavior. And it may shed light on why so many believed a candidate’s assertions that were both grim and demonstrably false. Finally, the results offer an explanation for why these false claims were more readily embraced by people who endorse conservative political causes than by those whose views are traditionally liberal."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
knapplc    19,301
57 minutes ago, TGHusker said:

Knapp you are way off base.  Speaking of false equivalency. 

 

1. Your accusation that I as an American Conservative have symptomatic impaired thinking is beyond ridiculous. Why do you say that - because we, as conservatives, don't walk in 'lockstep' to your group thinking? 

2.  You should notice why I created the thread - because the topic was derailing the Trump Russian investigation thread

3.  You should also notice that I did not provide any personal opinion in starting this thread.

4. You should also notice that the links I started the discussion with are non-conservative links.  The WSJ opinion page could be called mildly conservative - I guess it was the 'more and more information'. 

5.  And why had you not created the thread on Niger by the way?  I did at your suggestion just now.   It is some type of 'impaired thinking' (your words) to think one needs to create another thread on a totally unrelated subject to somehow 'balance out' the other thread.  That comes across as saying that by adding a anti-clinton thread, I need an anti-trump thread or that I'm a pro-trump guy - which should be very apparent that I am not.  

6.  Your statement 'not one thread on Niger' (implication by conservatives since that is the subject of the long first sentence) could be flipped - why no threads on Clinton's by liberals on the issue I bring up.   When I say that, I'm not saying there is an equivalency between Trump and Clinton or between the OP and the Niger issue- not all of the info is out yet on any of this.  And the Niger issue is by far the worse deal.   One should be able to investigate and look into allegations of all issue at the same time - thus all should be fair game to discuss on a thread.   If you don't want to participate in that discussion - then don't. But there is no need to make false, disparaging attacks on the OP and on me that are without merit.

7. Your last statement is beyond belief.   So you know what I consume do you?   You must falsely believe I watch Fox News, Listen to Rush, and go to far right events.  You might note that most of my links come from non-conservative sources just to avoid such accusations.  Other than Newsmax which is a news re-aggitator and links to the original article (like NYT), I try to go more mainstream to avoid any such accusation - again - note the articles in my OP and the one that follows.    

8. Engage the topic instead  attacking the messenger.   Broad brush statement like this don't add to the topic.  Deal with your anger against conservatives (apparent anger - it just seems to come out that way. Only you know) . I'm not angry at liberals- I have good discussions wt many on this board.  We may not agree on solutions to issues but I understand we just have different avenues in trying to fix problems - that is not a bad thing - if people listen to each other we might find a solution somewhere in the middle.

9.  I could say what you normally say:  Link???   when you make a statement like this: It is symptomatic of the impaired thinking of American Conservatives    I didn't know there is symptomatic impaired thinking among conservatives. :dunno   Who did the study?

10. You are too good of a poster, board leader, and I respect your views too much ( I really do) to see you make broad brush attack posts like the one above. You are better than that. 

 

 

While I appreciate all ten points of outrage on display here, I'm not saying anything that isn't in the public view.  In the Niger thread, Vox was used as a neutral source of information.  Here, from Vox just moments ago, are the exact sentiments I expressed in the post that gave birth to these ten complaints.

 

Quote

 

"A giant fog machine": how right-wing media obscures Mueller and other inconvenient stories

 

The news that special counsel Robert Mueller has indicted former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort ought to dominate headlines in every corner of the media world.

 

But if the past week or so is any indication, conservative media is likely to spend most of its bandwidth covering a fake conspiracy theory alleging that Hillary Clinton gave Russia 20 percent of our uranium as secretary of state.

 

President Trump called the bogus Clinton uranium deal a “modern-day Watergate.” A few days later, FoxNews.com amplified Trump’s charge in an article with the headline “Hillary Clinton's ties to Russian uranium deal largely ignored by anti-Trump media, and other media disasters.”

 

The conspiracy is false, but that’s not really the point. The point is to muddy the waters, to divert attention from actual scandals. This is something conservative media is uniquely good at. The question is, why? Why is conservative media so much better than liberal media when it comes to making its preferred narratives stick?

 

 

Compare that article with this:

 

3 hours ago, knapplc said:

It is symptomatic of the impaired thinking of American Conservatives that a thread like this is created, and added on to with more and more information, and not one thread has been created by anyone about the massacre of American troops in Niger.

 

You regurgitate the news you consume. It's all very clear who consumes what.

 

Uranium One is a distraction. It has been debunked (see the video above). It is not being put forth by Liberal or Moderate media outlets.  It is being put forth by Conservative media outlets.  Nobody who regularly consumes Liberal or Moderate information believes this story to be anything other than a distraction. Where, therefore, does this belief come from? 

 

It is harmful to this country to consume falsehoods in the guise of fact.  We saw the results of that when Trump made it through the primaries and general election in 2016.  We are reaping the fruits of that misinformation every day. 

 

Facts in the face of misinformation are not "broad brush attacks."  They are a rejection of falsehoods, and I see no reason to stop defending my country by remaining silent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TGHusker    1,335
39 minutes ago, knapplc said:

Because this Uranium One thing has been debunked and debunked and debunked and debunked.  It is not news.  See:

 

 

I haven't taken the time to listen to it.  So I will now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
knapplc    19,301
1 minute ago, TGHusker said:

I haven't taken the time to listen to it.

 

Which begs the question, then, where did you hear about this as a thing that is a concern, that we should be discussing? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
commando    1,626

https://www.vox.com/world/2017/2/17/14649980/trump-clinton-russia-uranium

 

But the claim that Clinton gave 20 percent of America’s uranium to Russia is incorrect and clearly misleading. Trump is referring to Russia’s nuclear power agency purchasing a majority stake in a Toronto-based energy company between 2009 and 2013. The company had mines and land in a number of US states with huge uranium production capacity — a move the US State Department signed off on. But PolitiFact did a thorough fact-check of the claim last year when Trump first made it on the campaign trail, and found the following faults with it:

  1. The mines, mills, and land the company holds in the US account for 20 percent of the US’s uranium production capacity, not actual produced uranium.
  2. The State Department was one of nine federal agencies and a number of additional independent federal and state regulators that signed off on the deal.
  3. President Obama, not Secretary Clinton, was the only person who could’ve vetoed the deal.
  4. Since Russia doesn’t have the legal right to export uranium out of the US, its main goal was likely to gain access to the company’s uranium assets in Kazakhstan.
  5. Crucially, the main national security concern was not about nuclear weapons proliferation, as Trump suggests, but actually ensuring the US doesn’t have to depend too much on uranium sources from abroad, as the US only makes about 20 percent of the uranium it needs. An advantage in making nuclear weapons wasn’t the main issue because, as PolitiFact notes, “the United States and Russia had for years cooperated on that front, with Russia sending enriched fuel from decommissioned warheads to be used in American nuclear power plants in return for raw uranium.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TGHusker    1,335
10 minutes ago, knapplc said:

 

 

While I appreciate all ten points of outrage on display here, I'm not saying anything that isn't in the public view.  In the Niger thread, Vox was used as a neutral source of information.  Here, from Vox just moments ago, are the exact sentiments I expressed in the post that gave birth to these ten complaints.

 

 

Compare that article with this:

 

 

Uranium One is a distraction. It has been debunked (see the video above). It is not being put forth by Liberal or Moderate media outlets.  It is being put forth by Conservative media outlets.  Nobody who regularly consumes Liberal or Moderate information believes this story to be anything other than a distraction. Where, therefore, does this belief come from? 

 

It is harmful to this country to consume falsehoods in the guise of fact.  We saw the results of that when Trump made it through the primaries and general election in 2016.  We are reaping the fruits of that misinformation every day. 

 

Facts in the face of misinformation are not "broad brush attacks."  They are a rejection of falsehoods, and I see no reason to stop defending my country by remaining silent.

I have no problem wt you linking the vox article and I agree wt their statement - I do see it as a smoke screen to divert attention from Trump.   My broad brush is that you lumped me and apparently all conservatives as being pro-Trump smoke screen artists and that isn't the case.   I posted the OP because this is a topic I haven't investigated including the DNC dossier funding issue.  Yes, it can all be a very well conceived diversion put out by the Trump team esp in light of yesterday's news on indictments.  But that is what the board is for - for us to discuss.  I hope people bring up things to help me get to the bottom of an issue and correct my thinking if I'm thinking wrong.  If the uranium thing is a falsehood - I'm more than happy to see it as such.  I'll look forward to viewing the link.  My "outrage" as you put it isn't towards the issue but towards dumping all of us into a single pot.  If you want to know my motive in posting something then just plainly ask. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TGHusker    1,335
10 minutes ago, knapplc said:

 

Which begs the question, then, where did you hear about this as a thing that is a concern, that we should be discussing? 

I believe my first contact was the Washington Post article - that or the Hill article.  Can't remember which one was 1st.  Looked around and saw the other links that I posted. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TGHusker    1,335

And Knapp - I harbor no ill feelings towards you or anyone who my have a different opinion on any subject. Life is too short for that and we probably in the end have more in common than not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TGHusker    1,335
10 minutes ago, commando said:

https://www.vox.com/world/2017/2/17/14649980/trump-clinton-russia-uranium

 

But the claim that Clinton gave 20 percent of America’s uranium to Russia is incorrect and clearly misleading. Trump is referring to Russia’s nuclear power agency purchasing a majority stake in a Toronto-based energy company between 2009 and 2013. The company had mines and land in a number of US states with huge uranium production capacity — a move the US State Department signed off on. But PolitiFact did a thorough fact-check of the claim last year when Trump first made it on the campaign trail, and found the following faults with it:

  1. The mines, mills, and land the company holds in the US account for 20 percent of the US’s uranium production capacity, not actual produced uranium.
  2. The State Department was one of nine federal agencies and a number of additional independent federal and state regulators that signed off on the deal.
  3. President Obama, not Secretary Clinton, was the only person who could’ve vetoed the deal.
  4. Since Russia doesn’t have the legal right to export uranium out of the US, its main goal was likely to gain access to the company’s uranium assets in Kazakhstan.
  5. Crucially, the main national security concern was not about nuclear weapons proliferation, as Trump suggests, but actually ensuring the US doesn’t have to depend too much on uranium sources from abroad, as the US only makes about 20 percent of the uranium it needs. An advantage in making nuclear weapons wasn’t the main issue because, as PolitiFact notes, “the United States and Russia had for years cooperated on that front, with Russia sending enriched fuel from decommissioned warheads to be used in American nuclear power plants in return for raw uranium.”

This is a good quote.  # 4 is some thing that is never heard but is the big elephant in the room. I didn't know about # 4.  That is a great safe guard to the sale.  Thanks for sharing all of this.  It all makes good sense. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
knapplc    19,301
3 hours ago, knapplc said:

You regurgitate the news you consume. It's all very clear who consumes what.

 

Rupert Murdoch owns the Wall Street Journal. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TGHusker    1,335
1 hour ago, knapplc said:

Because this Uranium One thing has been debunked and debunked and debunked and debunked.  It is not news.  See:

 

 

Good interview by the interviewer. The Washington Examiner person didn't have much to stand on afterwards. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TGHusker    1,335
2 minutes ago, knapplc said:

 

Rupert Murdoch owns the Wall Street Journal. 

Fine -  I'll give you that point. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TGHusker    1,335

 

Not to belabor a point or to get the last word in, I felt I need to correct a misconception.  Knapp since you added the above quote(Rupert Murdoch owns the WSJ) to your previous statement : You regurgitate the news you consume. It's all very clear who consumes what.

I need to take exception to your statement and by implications that (1) The WSJ is some right wing rag and (2) Since I quoted it, therefore I'm regurgitator of far right wing news.(1) As noted in the Media Bias Thread, there were two sources provided that showed the WSJ to be a center right publication. See chart below.  WSJ has never been considered a far right wing rag. While its OPED pages may be more conservative than its news pages, it has never been in the same discussion as a far right rag. In the chart below, it occupies to the right the same spot that the often quoted Vox occupies to the left.  I've read other conservatives who think the WSJ isn't conservative enough.  Regardless, I quoted it without comment and left it to stand or fall on its own.  (2) Frankly I don't care if someone posts a far left or far right article.  Let the articles be discussed and be hashed out on their own merit.  If it is an unreliable source, it will be proven in the discussion.  The purpose of HB is to hash these things out without ridicule & judgement. If you really want to correct someone (instead of gaining gotcha points - which is the temptation for all of us) then correct as a teacher and not as a judge.  I've had many teachable moments on HP by posts many have made, including you.  But I won't be pressured into a certain mindset through ridicule, labeling, or popular group think.  Give me the facts, and I will consider it.  If a life long republican voter like me can turn on the party and on Trump, I think I'm open enough to consider other points of view - including those from you and even those more on the left of center political spectrum.                                                                                                                                

 

image.thumb.png.85498df79ada3d836975102ede9b1cb3.png

 

 

image.png

Edited by TGHusker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
deedsker    333

I am guessing this is the only reason this has popped up again. Can't fire Mueller, throw crap at the fan until the whole place smells.

 

Linky Link

 

Roger Stone believes defunding Mueller isn’t enough. Instead, Stone wants Trump to call for a special prosecutor to investigate Hillary Clinton’s role in approving the controversial Uranium One deal that’s been a locus of rightwing hysteria (the transaction involved a Russian state-owned energy firm acquiring a Canadian mining company that controlled 20 percent of the uranium in the United States). It’s a bit of a bank shot, but as Stone described it, a special prosecutor looking into Uranium One would also have to investigate the F.B.I.’s role in approving the deal, thereby making Mueller—who was in charge of the bureau at the time—a target. Stone’s choice for a special prosecutor: Rudy Giuliani law colleague Marc Mukasey or Fox News pundit Andrew Napolitano. “You would immediately have to inform Mueller, Comey, and [Deputy Attorney General] Rod Rosenstein that they are under federal investigation,” Stone said. “Trump can’t afford to fire Mueller politically. But this pushes him aside.”

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RedDenver    1,799
18 minutes ago, deedsker said:

I am guessing this is the only reason this has popped up again. Can't fire Mueller, throw crap at the fan until the whole place smells.

 

Linky Link

 

Roger Stone believes defunding Mueller isn’t enough. Instead, Stone wants Trump to call for a special prosecutor to investigate Hillary Clinton’s role in approving the controversial Uranium One deal that’s been a locus of rightwing hysteria (the transaction involved a Russian state-owned energy firm acquiring a Canadian mining company that controlled 20 percent of the uranium in the United States). It’s a bit of a bank shot, but as Stone described it, a special prosecutor looking into Uranium One would also have to investigate the F.B.I.’s role in approving the deal, thereby making Mueller—who was in charge of the bureau at the time—a target. Stone’s choice for a special prosecutor: Rudy Giuliani law colleague Marc Mukasey or Fox News pundit Andrew Napolitano. “You would immediately have to inform Mueller, Comey, and [Deputy Attorney General] Rod Rosenstein that they are under federal investigation,” Stone said. “Trump can’t afford to fire Mueller politically. But this pushes him aside.”

 

Roger Stone is the dregs of US politics. Basically, if Roger Stone suggests something, we should immediately consider doing the opposite.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TGHusker    1,335

Pretty devious.  I guess this will fall under the "Seriousness of the Allegations" category.    Serious chess game going on here.   I'm thinking now that the allegations came out late last week as Trump's team may have been tipped off on the Manafort indictment, etc.  Rudy would be a wild man running this kangaroo court.

Edited by TGHusker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
deedsker    333
18 minutes ago, TGHusker said:

Pretty devious.  I guess this will fall under the "Seriousness of the Allegations" category.    Serious chess game going on here.   I'm thinking now that the allegations came out late last week as Trump's team may have been tipped off on the Manafort indictment, etc.  Rudy would be a wild man running this kangaroo court.

 

But even as you noted before, it isn't chess, but creating outrage at nothing to maintain power over people who aren't aware of the nonissue. A 2 minute clip clears up everything and why nobody should even care. This crap is exactly why we have so many issues in our country because too many people don't have time to hear all the facts and are left with Hillary should be under investigation because I heard some shady stuff about uranium.

 

This is the root of the problems plaguing our nation. We have real issues to resolve and, instead, we get thrown down these rabbit holes that do nothing for anyone.

Edited by deedsker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
knapplc    19,301
On 10/31/2017 at 10:56 AM, TGHusker said:

Other than Newsmax which is a news re-aggitator

 

It isn't.  Newsmax is a right-leaning, pro-Trump site. 

 

Trump-aligned network courts O’Reilly

 

Quote

Newsmax, the conservative media network with strong ties to President Donald Trump, is courting disgraced former Fox News host Bill O’Reilly for a potential deal that would return him to cable television, Newsmax CEO Chris Ruddy told POLITICO on Wednesday.

 

 

 

 

Newsmax Media

 

Quote

Newsmax Media is an American news media organization founded by Christopher Ruddy and based in West Palm Beach, Florida. It operates a multiplatform network focused on conservative[1] media, including the news website Newsmax.com, publishes the Franklin Prosperity Report and Newsmax magazine, and the cable news channel Newsmax TV.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TGHusker    1,335
14 minutes ago, knapplc said:

 

It isn't.  Newsmax is a right-leaning, pro-Trump site. 

 

Trump-aligned network courts O’Reilly

 

 

 

 

 

Newsmax Media

 

 

Chris Rudy was more of a Jeb supporter during the primaries. Then a Rubio supporter.   He came under fire for being a donor to the Clinton Foundation.  They are conservative but they aren't  Trump supporting - like the Drudge report was, or Brietbart, Info wars. etc.   So conservative yes, a Trump mouth piece no.   I state this because I've seen plenty of neg trump articles on the site which draw the displeasure of trump supporters - many of whom accuse Newsmax of being a MSM sellout.    They often link to NYT, Wash Post, Reuters, The Hill, Politico and other similar sites in their articles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
knapplc    19,301

Politico itself says it's a pro-Trump site in the link I provided. 

 

Regardless of Newsmax's affinity for Trump, they are not an unbiased source and are definitely conservative. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TGHusker    1,335
2 hours ago, deedsker said:

I am guessing this is the only reason this has popped up again. Can't fire Mueller, throw crap at the fan until the whole place smells.

 

Linky Link

 

Roger Stone believes defunding Mueller isn’t enough. Instead, Stone wants Trump to call for a special prosecutor to investigate Hillary Clinton’s role in approving the controversial Uranium One deal that’s been a locus of rightwing hysteria (the transaction involved a Russian state-owned energy firm acquiring a Canadian mining company that controlled 20 percent of the uranium in the United States). It’s a bit of a bank shot, but as Stone described it, a special prosecutor looking into Uranium One would also have to investigate the F.B.I.’s role in approving the deal, thereby making Mueller—who was in charge of the bureau at the time—a target. Stone’s choice for a special prosecutor: Rudy Giuliani law colleague Marc Mukasey or Fox News pundit Andrew Napolitano. “You would immediately have to inform Mueller, Comey, and [Deputy Attorney General] Rod Rosenstein that they are under federal investigation,” Stone said. “Trump can’t afford to fire Mueller politically. But this pushes him aside.”

 

I just read this article in full again. If reliable, (How reliable is Vanity Fair :dunno) it is very enlightening.   It does substantiate what others have  said above and the  3 min interview video. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TGHusker    1,335
1 minute ago, knapplc said:

Politico itself says it's a pro-Trump site in the link I provided. 

 

Regardless of Newsmax's affinity for Trump, they are not an unbiased source and are definitely conservative. 

I have no issue with the bias comment.  Every site has a bias. Politico has a bias.   We know up front that it (Newsmax) is conservative (and that is not a swear word by the way) and we make evaluations accordingly.  It is ok to hear a conservative perspective and also listen to the liberal perspective.   I would argue wt Politico's assessment that Newsmax is pro-Trump - it may be neutral and that is too conservative for Politico, like I said, I've seen way to many neg articles or links to label them pro-trump.  I don't get into the commentary section of newsmax much but this current list of commentators showing on the home page including Robert Reich doesn't appear to be pro Trump.  But we can agree to disagree and move back to the main topic on the thread.

 

 

image.thumb.png.d1c52b21fcf96dd6ed8faac08d84397e.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
deedsker    333
24 minutes ago, TGHusker said:

I just read this article in full again. If reliable, (How reliable is Vanity Fair :dunno) it is very enlightening.   It does substantiate what others have  said above and the  3 min interview video. 

Eh, The Hill and other were using as sources for their article so I went ahead and read it from the source. I generally try to read from the source if it looks like everyone else just wrote lesser articles pulling from the sourced article.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dudeguyy    3,490
2 minutes ago, TGHusker said:

I have no issue with the bias comment.  Every site has a bias. Politico has a bias.   We know up front that it (Newsmax) is conservative (and that is not a swear word by the way) and we make evaluations accordingly.  It is ok to hear a conservative perspective and also listen to the liberal perspective.   I would argue wt Politico's assessment that Newsmax is pro-Trump - it may be neutral and that is too conservative for Politico, like I said, I've seen way to many neg articles or links to label them pro-trump.  I don't get into the commentary section of newsmax much but this current list of commentators showing on the home page including Robert Reich doesn't appear to be pro Trump.  But we can agree to disagree and move back to the main topic on the thread.

 

 

image.thumb.png.d1c52b21fcf96dd6ed8faac08d84397e.png

 

The CEO of Newsmax is Christopher Ruddy, both a personal friend and an early donor to Trump's campaign. I've seen him go on multiple morning news shows to act as somewhat of a Trump confidant. I would definitely say his publication is pro-Trump because they're so chummy.

 

But I agree with your assertion that it's good to consume media from varied sources. But it's really important for people to think for themselves as they consume media & reach political opinions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TGHusker    1,335

Well I think Ruddy plays nice with all of the big boys.  When the primaries started, he had many favorable Jeb articles. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×