Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
let's get a special counsel and find out for sure. That seems fair. I mean two and a half years to find a nothing burger russia bot on trump, let's see if it was indeed on the other side from within.Debunked? how? the collusion story was debunked, there was a real investigation and you got nothing.....show me the investigation into Uranium One?i'll tell you the same thing i've told another whackjob poster not too long ago:
so how many years ago was that exchange again? guess obama is running on CPT huh? when ARE those shenanigans you think are gonna happen anyway? i mean after all - he imposed sanctions on them thar roooskies, AND expelled roooskie spies, AND closed down their compounds. what has donny done? oh yea..... it took a veto act of congress to finally imposed even more stringent sanctions. & he didn't he just have one lifted against a russian?
why yes.... yes he did.
So...yes, Clinton sold Uranium rights to the Russians.
Thank you!
uranium one - - - debunked.
but i was talking about obama's so called 'incriminating' video.
find the links i posted. hillary didn't get that uranium one deal done on her own, nor could have.
well some did and were punished. others nope. I'd say anyone lying was stupid. but that isn't collusion and it isn't trump nor his campaign colluding. so still trying to figure where you're gonna find that needle in the needles.He basically has.....no prosecutor comes out and says soandso was exonerated....please show me that? Trump is right, he dealt with 3 years of bullshit like spying on his campaign(which you guys mocked, but he was RIGHT) and he didn't do shit.......not only him but NO AMERICAN helped Russia in ANY WAY........that's the closest you will ever get to a complete exoneration from a prosecutor.Name me a prosecutor that has exonerated someone?The answers have already told you that there was no collusion, obstruction, etc. It won't matter though. You can't handle the fact that you lost 2016.
there may not have been enough to convict on a charge of conspiracy... but trump HAS NOT been exonerated on OBSTRUCTION & saying he has is a big fat orange LIE.
trump is saying that mueller has.
& no american, like flynn or manafort or papadopolous or sessions or kushner or donny jr lied to the feds about their russian contacts....
obstruction charges that were possible after the witch hunt started. now that it's over, let's go.let's get a special counsel and find out for sure. That seems fair. I mean two and a half years to find a nothing burger russia bot on trump, let's see if it was indeed on the other side from within.Debunked? how? the collusion story was debunked, there was a real investigation and you got nothing.....show me the investigation into Uranium One?So...yes, Clinton sold Uranium rights to the Russians.
Thank you!
uranium one - - - debunked.
but i was talking about obama's so called 'incriminating' video.
find the links i posted. hillary didn't get that uranium one deal done on her own, nor could have.
lol... why haven't the (R)s done that already? i mean they've had a hard on for decades to nail hillary on something.... ANYTHING. they could have gone after her for that... but didn't.... cause they couldn't cause they knew they would fail .... again.
Can you gusy do a Google search at all? Jesus the left is lazy as fuck......no wonder you are all on welfare. And no wonder you vote for the left, you don't try to find anything out.....Debunked? how? the collusion story was debunked, there was a real investigation and you got nothing.....show me the investigation into Uranium One?i'll tell you the same thing i've told another whackjob poster not too long ago:
so how many years ago was that exchange again? guess obama is running on CPT huh? when ARE those shenanigans you think are gonna happen anyway? i mean after all - he imposed sanctions on them thar roooskies, AND expelled roooskie spies, AND closed down their compounds. what has donny done? oh yea..... it took a veto act of congress to finally imposed even more stringent sanctions. & he didn't he just have one lifted against a russian?
why yes.... yes he did.
So...yes, Clinton sold Uranium rights to the Russians.
Thank you!
uranium one - - - debunked.
but i was talking about obama's so called 'incriminating' video.
So where does Mueller say that Trump did not collude??? I thought it said they found no evidence of collusion.
Mueller was clear in finding no collusion, but punted on the matter of obstruction
On coordination with the Russians, special counsel Robert Mueller was clear, according to the attorney general's letter to Congress Sunday: He did not find "that the Trump campaign or anyone associated with it conspired or coordinated with Russia in its efforts to influence the 2016 U.S. presidential election."
Based on that, Barr, along with Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, decided that the evidence collected by Mueller did not establish that Trump committed the crime of obstruction of justice.
I mean he didn't do it, we all knew it......can you guys THINK for once? Look at multiple sources....I just posted NBC......a source I hate....but I do look at their stuff in case my side is full of shit.......which it rarely is.....
you guys really are in the Matrix......just sitting there sucking up what Rachel Maddow says and that's it.
she did something that was a crime.Hillary spent 11 hours answering questions, Trump would not even meet with Muller. Just many unanswered questions. We have a dishonest government, the truth has been murdered, booth sides lack basic honesty. our fault ? think yes.
well some did and were punished. others nope. I'd say anyone lying was stupid. but that isn't collusion and it isn't trump nor his campaign colluding. so still trying to figure where you're gonna find that needle in the needles.He basically has.....no prosecutor comes out and says soandso was exonerated....please show me that? Trump is right, he dealt with 3 years of bullshit like spying on his campaign(which you guys mocked, but he was RIGHT) and he didn't do shit.......not only him but NO AMERICAN helped Russia in ANY WAY........that's the closest you will ever get to a complete exoneration from a prosecutor.Name me a prosecutor that has exonerated someone?there may not have been enough to convict on a charge of conspiracy... but trump HAS NOT been exonerated on OBSTRUCTION & saying he has is a big fat orange LIE.
trump is saying that mueller has.
& no american, like flynn or manafort or papadopolous or sessions or kushner or donny jr lied to the feds about their russian contacts....
Oh Politifact and of course they would be so honest about politics....we all know the fact checkers are as biased as the news they work for.........guys the jig is up......we know how the system works.Nope! All the money spent by the USA for support for a 2 State solution was spent BEFORE Netanyahu called for an early election.Nothing wrong with it, IF he had told us about it, instead of lying over and over again about it and many other Russian connections.
I've been a Realtor for 40+ years. Nothing on the level of the Great Donald Trump. You never, ever discuss a deal in the making. Word gets out and the price skyrockets. NO COLLUSION!
this election in 2016 was a MASSIVE, INTERFERENCE PLAN, run by the Russian government..... unlike anything they had ever done before.
PLEASE show us the MASSIVE INTERFERENCE PLAN. Please show where it was "unlike anything they had ever done before". So what? NO COLLUSION!
that's simply untrue, fact check it, the money spent in Israel was a support for a program, and all money was spent on this program, was spent PRIOR to Netanyahu ever announcing he was calling another election.... so it was NOT used to influence an election.... no one KNEW there would be an election.
Obama admin. sent taxpayer money to campaign to oust Netanyahu
Stephen Dinan - The Washington Times - Tuesday, July 12, 2016
The State Department paid hundreds of thousands of dollars in taxpayers grants to an Israeli group that used the money to build a campaign to oust Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in last year’s Israeli parliamentary elections, a congressional investigation concluded Tuesday.
Obama admin. sent taxpayer money to campaign to oust Netanyahu
Obama’s Meddling in Foreign Elections: Six Examples
by STEVE BALDWIN
June 14, 2017, 12:00 AM
[...]
Obama’s State Department gave $350,000 to a group called the “One Voice Movement (OVM),” for supporting “peace negotiations between Israel and Palestine.” However, the State Department then used leftover funds to organize an effort against Netanyahu’s reelection. OVM contracted out a group called “V15,” which in turned hired five campaign experts from the U.S., including Obama’s field director from his last presidential campaign. As the Weekly Standard’s Jim Swift wrote, “once the infrastructure was built, it was used in an attempt to topple the government of one of America’s closest allies.”
[...]
Obama’s Meddling in Foreign Elections: Six Examples | The American Spectator | Politics is too important to be taken seriously.
Did President Barack Obama spend U.S. taxpayer dollars trying to toss Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu out of office?
Blog claims U.S. funded anti-Netanyahu election effort in Israel
By Jon Greenberg on Wednesday, March 25th, 2015 at 12:12 p.m.
That’s a claim floating around conservative media websites in recent days. A conservative blog called Fire Andrea Mitchell was one of several to relay a Fox News report about alleged back-door funding in the recent Israeli elections. On March 16, 2015, the blogger wrote "Obama has been sending taxpayer dollars, at least $350,000 to fund anti-Likud, anti Netanyahu groups in Israel for tomorrow’s election."
Fox News said a congressional investigation into the matter is underway, and presidential contender Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, along with Rep. Lee Zeldin, R-N.Y., sent a letter about this to federal officials "to express our strong concerns over recent media reports."
What are the facts of the matter?
The basis of the claim
In September 2013, the State Department funded two projects run by OneVoice, a New York nonprofit. The OneVoice mission is clear -- to advance a two-state solution in Israel and the Palestinian territories.
"Through OneVoice, young grassroots activists in Israel and Palestine are equipped with the knowledge and skills to be heard as they build momentum and a constituency for the two-state solution locally and internationally," the organization wrote in its 2013 annual report.
Affiliates OneVoice Israel got $233,500 from the State Department to spend in Israel and OneVoice Palestine got another $115,776 to spend in the Palestinian Territories. That adds up to a little more than $349,000.
The question is: Do those contributions amount to funding "anti-Likud, anti-Netanyahu groups in Israel for tomorrow’s election"?
How OneVoice says the money was spent
Given that residents of the Palestinian Territories can’t vote in national Israeli elections, it’s hard to see how money spent there would influence voters in Israel. That leave us to account for $233,500.
Payton Knopf, senior director of global communications for OneVoice, said the money helped fund a series of "town-hall style meetings on university campuses and provided support to the Knesset Caucus for the Two-State Solution in organizing a meeting with 300 Israeli students and (Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud) Abbas in February 2014."
Knopf told us the State Department money was spent by November 2014 -- nearly four months ago. OneVoice, he said, never "spent any U.S. government funds in connection with the recent elections in Israel. Claims to the contrary are simply wrong."
There are two important points to unpack there. If OneVoice says it spent the money by November 2014, that would be before the Israeli elections were even scheduled. That happened in December after Netanyahu called for early elections.
The State Department said in a briefing that "no payment was made to OneVoice after November 2014."
That would contradict the way the claim in the blog was phrased. "Has been sending" says the money continues to flow. In this case the money was spent and disbursed months ago.
Second, while Netanyahu waffled on the notion of a two-state solution in the run-up to the Israeli elections, the prime minister had been on record supporting a two-state strategy in November and the months before it.
Read more:
Blog claims U.S. funded anti-Netanyahu election effort in Israel
I found the Senate investigation and again, there was no wrong doing by Obama and the State Department, though they suggest being more careful next time around, with restrictions on how the USA efforts could not be utilized for other purposes later on.
Senate report: State Dept. grant also aided campaign to unseat Netanyahu
Politifact
Has this Media Source failed a fact check? LET US KNOW HERE.
Share:
LEAST BIASED
These sources have minimal bias and use very few loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes). The reporting is factual and usually sourced. These are the most credible media sources. See all Least Biases sources.
Detailed Report
- Overall, this update reveals a slight leftward shift in Politifact’s fact checking selection, but not enough to move them from the least biased category.
Factual Reporting: HIGH
Country: USA
World Press Freedom Rank: USA 45/180
[...]
Analysis / Bias
In review, Politifact has been called left biased by some right leaning sources. In fact, there is a source called Politifact Bias that is dedicated to pointing out Politifact’s biases. Politifact is also a signatory of the International Fact Checking Network (IFCN), which outlines a code principles for credible fact checkers.
Politifact uses minimal loaded language in their articles and headlines such as this: Trump falsely claims NATO countries owe United States money for defense spending. All information is well sourced to credible media and/or direct statements from experts in the field or the politicians themselves. Fact Check selection leans slightly left as more right wing politicians are currently fact checked. This may be due to bias or the fact that Republicans currently control all branches of government and hence there is more to check. In fact, there was a recent academic study done that shows Politifact employs minimal bias through wording.
[...]
Politifact - Media Bias/Fact Check
Oh Politifact and of course they would be so honest about politics....we all know the fact checkers are as biased as the news they work for.........guys the jig is up......we know how the system works.Nope! All the money spent by the USA for support for a 2 State solution was spent BEFORE Netanyahu called for an early election.Nothing wrong with it, IF he had told us about it, instead of lying over and over again about it and many other Russian connections.
I've been a Realtor for 40+ years. Nothing on the level of the Great Donald Trump. You never, ever discuss a deal in the making. Word gets out and the price skyrockets. NO COLLUSION!
this election in 2016 was a MASSIVE, INTERFERENCE PLAN, run by the Russian government..... unlike anything they had ever done before.
PLEASE show us the MASSIVE INTERFERENCE PLAN. Please show where it was "unlike anything they had ever done before". So what? NO COLLUSION!
that's simply untrue, fact check it, the money spent in Israel was a support for a program, and all money was spent on this program, was spent PRIOR to Netanyahu ever announcing he was calling another election.... so it was NOT used to influence an election.... no one KNEW there would be an election.
Obama admin. sent taxpayer money to campaign to oust Netanyahu
Stephen Dinan - The Washington Times - Tuesday, July 12, 2016
The State Department paid hundreds of thousands of dollars in taxpayers grants to an Israeli group that used the money to build a campaign to oust Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in last year’s Israeli parliamentary elections, a congressional investigation concluded Tuesday.
Obama admin. sent taxpayer money to campaign to oust Netanyahu
Obama’s Meddling in Foreign Elections: Six Examples
by STEVE BALDWIN
June 14, 2017, 12:00 AM
[...]
Obama’s State Department gave $350,000 to a group called the “One Voice Movement (OVM),” for supporting “peace negotiations between Israel and Palestine.” However, the State Department then used leftover funds to organize an effort against Netanyahu’s reelection. OVM contracted out a group called “V15,” which in turned hired five campaign experts from the U.S., including Obama’s field director from his last presidential campaign. As the Weekly Standard’s Jim Swift wrote, “once the infrastructure was built, it was used in an attempt to topple the government of one of America’s closest allies.”
[...]
Obama’s Meddling in Foreign Elections: Six Examples | The American Spectator | Politics is too important to be taken seriously.
Did President Barack Obama spend U.S. taxpayer dollars trying to toss Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu out of office?
Blog claims U.S. funded anti-Netanyahu election effort in Israel
By Jon Greenberg on Wednesday, March 25th, 2015 at 12:12 p.m.
That’s a claim floating around conservative media websites in recent days. A conservative blog called Fire Andrea Mitchell was one of several to relay a Fox News report about alleged back-door funding in the recent Israeli elections. On March 16, 2015, the blogger wrote "Obama has been sending taxpayer dollars, at least $350,000 to fund anti-Likud, anti Netanyahu groups in Israel for tomorrow’s election."
Fox News said a congressional investigation into the matter is underway, and presidential contender Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, along with Rep. Lee Zeldin, R-N.Y., sent a letter about this to federal officials "to express our strong concerns over recent media reports."
What are the facts of the matter?
The basis of the claim
In September 2013, the State Department funded two projects run by OneVoice, a New York nonprofit. The OneVoice mission is clear -- to advance a two-state solution in Israel and the Palestinian territories.
"Through OneVoice, young grassroots activists in Israel and Palestine are equipped with the knowledge and skills to be heard as they build momentum and a constituency for the two-state solution locally and internationally," the organization wrote in its 2013 annual report.
Affiliates OneVoice Israel got $233,500 from the State Department to spend in Israel and OneVoice Palestine got another $115,776 to spend in the Palestinian Territories. That adds up to a little more than $349,000.
The question is: Do those contributions amount to funding "anti-Likud, anti-Netanyahu groups in Israel for tomorrow’s election"?
How OneVoice says the money was spent
Given that residents of the Palestinian Territories can’t vote in national Israeli elections, it’s hard to see how money spent there would influence voters in Israel. That leave us to account for $233,500.
Payton Knopf, senior director of global communications for OneVoice, said the money helped fund a series of "town-hall style meetings on university campuses and provided support to the Knesset Caucus for the Two-State Solution in organizing a meeting with 300 Israeli students and (Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud) Abbas in February 2014."
Knopf told us the State Department money was spent by November 2014 -- nearly four months ago. OneVoice, he said, never "spent any U.S. government funds in connection with the recent elections in Israel. Claims to the contrary are simply wrong."
There are two important points to unpack there. If OneVoice says it spent the money by November 2014, that would be before the Israeli elections were even scheduled. That happened in December after Netanyahu called for early elections.
The State Department said in a briefing that "no payment was made to OneVoice after November 2014."
That would contradict the way the claim in the blog was phrased. "Has been sending" says the money continues to flow. In this case the money was spent and disbursed months ago.
Second, while Netanyahu waffled on the notion of a two-state solution in the run-up to the Israeli elections, the prime minister had been on record supporting a two-state strategy in November and the months before it.
Read more:
Blog claims U.S. funded anti-Netanyahu election effort in Israel
I found the Senate investigation and again, there was no wrong doing by Obama and the State Department, though they suggest being more careful next time around, with restrictions on how the USA efforts could not be utilized for other purposes later on.
Senate report: State Dept. grant also aided campaign to unseat Netanyahu
Politifact
Has this Media Source failed a fact check? LET US KNOW HERE.
Share:
LEAST BIASED
These sources have minimal bias and use very few loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes). The reporting is factual and usually sourced. These are the most credible media sources. See all Least Biases sources.
Detailed Report
- Overall, this update reveals a slight leftward shift in Politifact’s fact checking selection, but not enough to move them from the least biased category.
Factual Reporting: HIGH
Country: USA
World Press Freedom Rank: USA 45/180
[...]
Analysis / Bias
In review, Politifact has been called left biased by some right leaning sources. In fact, there is a source called Politifact Bias that is dedicated to pointing out Politifact’s biases. Politifact is also a signatory of the International Fact Checking Network (IFCN), which outlines a code principles for credible fact checkers.
Politifact uses minimal loaded language in their articles and headlines such as this: Trump falsely claims NATO countries owe United States money for defense spending. All information is well sourced to credible media and/or direct statements from experts in the field or the politicians themselves. Fact Check selection leans slightly left as more right wing politicians are currently fact checked. This may be due to bias or the fact that Republicans currently control all branches of government and hence there is more to check. In fact, there was a recent academic study done that shows Politifact employs minimal bias through wording.
[...]
Politifact - Media Bias/Fact Check
Politifact!
so did trumpco.
Look I know you lefties play games and live in a world where you're not challenged......but I'll repeat it again.It means there was not enough evidence or they were unable to establish "intent"....ESTABLISH a crime, without a reasonable doubt, does not mean there was no evidence..did not find enough evidence to ESTABLISH a crime, without a reasonable doubt, does not mean there was no evidence...Can you gusy do a Google search at all? Jesus the left is lazy as fuck......no wonder you are all on welfare. And no wonder you vote for the left, you don't try to find anything out.....So where does Mueller say that Trump did not collude??? I thought it said they found no evidence of collusion.
Mueller was clear in finding no collusion, but punted on the matter of obstruction
On coordination with the Russians, special counsel Robert Mueller was clear, according to the attorney general's letter to Congress Sunday: He did not find "that the Trump campaign or anyone associated with it conspired or coordinated with Russia in its efforts to influence the 2016 U.S. presidential election."
Based on that, Barr, along with Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, decided that the evidence collected by Mueller did not establish that Trump committed the crime of obstruction of justice.
I mean he didn't do it, we all knew it......can you guys THINK for once? Look at multiple sources....I just posted NBC......a source I hate....but I do look at their stuff in case my side is full of shit.......which it rarely is.....
you guys really are in the Matrix......just sitting there sucking up what Rachel Maddow says and that's it.
Muelerr said that "did not find...", not that Trump didn't.
people keep jumping over that ''establish'' word...
the administration and Barr, played right in to the Russian hands of continuing to divide us, by not releasing the Mueller report, at the same time as Barr's summary, and by Barr not following the ethics rule of recusing himself on this issue... after he had written a 19 page job interview for Trump's lawyers stating basically a President can never obstruct and break the law.... only if they are Democrats like bill Clinton, can this happen....
what else does it mean?
What it DOES NOT MEAN,
is that there was NO evidence...
it means that there was evidence of wrong doing....but not enough to leave some reasonable doubt,
the opposite of what President Trump is saying and getting you guys to repeat, like good little minions.
so did trumpco.
Is that the best you've got? Does that make you proud, feel good? So cute!
No bullshit, Sessions recused himself....Barr does not need to, he was not a part of the campaign........so that doesn't fly.No need to, the Ethics departmnt of the Department of Justice said that Barr should recuse himself on this issue....did not find enough evidence to ESTABLISH a crime, without a reasonable doubt, does not mean there was no evidence...Can you gusy do a Google search at all? Jesus the left is lazy as fuck......no wonder you are all on welfare. And no wonder you vote for the left, you don't try to find anything out.....So where does Mueller say that Trump did not collude??? I thought it said they found no evidence of collusion.
Mueller was clear in finding no collusion, but punted on the matter of obstruction
On coordination with the Russians, special counsel Robert Mueller was clear, according to the attorney general's letter to Congress Sunday: He did not find "that the Trump campaign or anyone associated with it conspired or coordinated with Russia in its efforts to influence the 2016 U.S. presidential election."
Based on that, Barr, along with Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, decided that the evidence collected by Mueller did not establish that Trump committed the crime of obstruction of justice.
I mean he didn't do it, we all knew it......can you guys THINK for once? Look at multiple sources....I just posted NBC......a source I hate....but I do look at their stuff in case my side is full of shit.......which it rarely is.....
you guys really are in the Matrix......just sitting there sucking up what Rachel Maddow says and that's it.
Muelerr said that "did not find...", not that Trump didn't.
people keep jumping over that ''establish'' word...
the administration and Barr, played right in to the Russian hands of continuing to divide us, by not releasing the Mueller report, at the same time as Barr's summary, and by Barr not following the ethics rule of recusing himself on this issue... after he had written a 19 page job interview for Trump's lawyers stating basically a President can never obstruct and break the law.... only if they are Democrats like Bill Clinton, can this happen....
and by Barr not following the ethics rule of recusing himself on this issue...
Can you post the ethics rule that says an appointee can't have a legal opinion?
You recuse when there is simply the appearance of not being able to be fair and just....
I love your trolling for both sides, its funny, but this one is true.....let the hearings commence!Comey cried like a baby and begged for forgiveness and now he's judge and jury? he's the one who should be investigated, my friends!
I agree. if they were hiding something, then mueller should have found it correct? So, all it shows now, is how stupid they were for lying about it. eh?well some did and were punished. others nope. I'd say anyone lying was stupid. but that isn't collusion and it isn't trump nor his campaign colluding. so still trying to figure where you're gonna find that needle in the needles.He basically has.....no prosecutor comes out and says soandso was exonerated....please show me that? Trump is right, he dealt with 3 years of bullshit like spying on his campaign(which you guys mocked, but he was RIGHT) and he didn't do shit.......not only him but NO AMERICAN helped Russia in ANY WAY........that's the closest you will ever get to a complete exoneration from a prosecutor.Name me a prosecutor that has exonerated someone?
trump is saying that mueller has.
& no american, like flynn or manafort or papadopolous or sessions or kushner or donny jr lied to the feds about their russian contacts....
no reason to lie if there was nothing to hide.
Hey Dipshit, we waited for 3 years for this report.....it's gonna take more than 24 hours to redact everything.....maybe some weeks........kinda like the FISA requests we've been wanting to see......it's your turn to be patient.......deal with itdid not find enough evidence to ESTABLISH a crime, without a reasonable doubt, does not mean there was no evidence...Can you gusy do a Google search at all? Jesus the left is lazy as fuck......no wonder you are all on welfare. And no wonder you vote for the left, you don't try to find anything out.....So where does Mueller say that Trump did not collude??? I thought it said they found no evidence of collusion.
Mueller was clear in finding no collusion, but punted on the matter of obstruction
On coordination with the Russians, special counsel Robert Mueller was clear, according to the attorney general's letter to Congress Sunday: He did not find "that the Trump campaign or anyone associated with it conspired or coordinated with Russia in its efforts to influence the 2016 U.S. presidential election."
Based on that, Barr, along with Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, decided that the evidence collected by Mueller did not establish that Trump committed the crime of obstruction of justice.
I mean he didn't do it, we all knew it......can you guys THINK for once? Look at multiple sources....I just posted NBC......a source I hate....but I do look at their stuff in case my side is full of shit.......which it rarely is.....
you guys really are in the Matrix......just sitting there sucking up what Rachel Maddow says and that's it.
Muelerr said that "did not find...", not that Trump didn't.
people keep jumping over that ''establish'' word...
the administration and Barr, played right in to the Russian hands of continuing to divide us, by not releasing the Mueller report, at the same time as Barr's summary, and by Barr not following the ethics rule of recusing himself on this issue... after he had written a 19 page job interview for Trump's lawyers stating basically a President can never obstruct and break the law.... only if they are Democrats like Bill Clinton, can this happen....
and by Barr not following the ethics rule of recusing himself on this issue...
Can you post the ethics rule that says an appointee can't have a legal opinion?
He's supposed to release the report to Congress. Not be the interpreter.
Yes, classified info is supposed to be redacted, but here's the timeline, butthead:
Barr received the report, which is as much as 500 pages, on Saturday.
On Sunday he spends how many hours writing his 4 page letter?
Can you fucking read 500 pages in less than 24 hours?
.
.
.
which are where????only in a leftists dream.So you have nothing.
This is the correct thread. Your abject stuipdity is embarassing.
i'll tell you the same thing i've told another whackjob poster not too long ago:
so how many years ago was that exchange again? guess obama is running on CPT huh? when ARE those shenanigans you think are gonna happen anyway? i mean after all - he imposed sanctions on them thar roooskies, AND expelled roooskie spies, AND closed down their compounds. what has donny done? oh yea..... it took a veto act of congress to finally imposed even more stringent sanctions. & he didn't he just have one lifted against a russian?
why yes.... yes he did.
So...yes, Clinton sold Uranium rights to the Russians.
Thank you!
uranium one - - - debunked.
but i was talking about obama's so called 'incriminating' video.
proven. & with credible non biased links...
Oh Politifact and of course they would be so honest about politics....we all know the fact checkers are as biased as the news they work for.........guys the jig is up......we know how the system works.Nope! All the money spent by the USA for support for a 2 State solution was spent BEFORE Netanyahu called for an early election.Nothing wrong with it, IF he had told us about it, instead of lying over and over again about it and many other Russian connections.
I've been a Realtor for 40+ years. Nothing on the level of the Great Donald Trump. You never, ever discuss a deal in the making. Word gets out and the price skyrockets. NO COLLUSION!
this election in 2016 was a MASSIVE, INTERFERENCE PLAN, run by the Russian government..... unlike anything they had ever done before.
PLEASE show us the MASSIVE INTERFERENCE PLAN. Please show where it was "unlike anything they had ever done before". So what? NO COLLUSION!
that's simply untrue, fact check it, the money spent in Israel was a support for a program, and all money was spent on this program, was spent PRIOR to Netanyahu ever announcing he was calling another election.... so it was NOT used to influence an election.... no one KNEW there would be an election.
Obama admin. sent taxpayer money to campaign to oust Netanyahu
Stephen Dinan - The Washington Times - Tuesday, July 12, 2016
The State Department paid hundreds of thousands of dollars in taxpayers grants to an Israeli group that used the money to build a campaign to oust Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in last year’s Israeli parliamentary elections, a congressional investigation concluded Tuesday.
Obama admin. sent taxpayer money to campaign to oust Netanyahu
Obama’s Meddling in Foreign Elections: Six Examples
by STEVE BALDWIN
June 14, 2017, 12:00 AM
[...]
Obama’s State Department gave $350,000 to a group called the “One Voice Movement (OVM),” for supporting “peace negotiations between Israel and Palestine.” However, the State Department then used leftover funds to organize an effort against Netanyahu’s reelection. OVM contracted out a group called “V15,” which in turned hired five campaign experts from the U.S., including Obama’s field director from his last presidential campaign. As the Weekly Standard’s Jim Swift wrote, “once the infrastructure was built, it was used in an attempt to topple the government of one of America’s closest allies.”
[...]
Obama’s Meddling in Foreign Elections: Six Examples | The American Spectator | Politics is too important to be taken seriously.
Did President Barack Obama spend U.S. taxpayer dollars trying to toss Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu out of office?
Blog claims U.S. funded anti-Netanyahu election effort in Israel
By Jon Greenberg on Wednesday, March 25th, 2015 at 12:12 p.m.
That’s a claim floating around conservative media websites in recent days. A conservative blog called Fire Andrea Mitchell was one of several to relay a Fox News report about alleged back-door funding in the recent Israeli elections. On March 16, 2015, the blogger wrote "Obama has been sending taxpayer dollars, at least $350,000 to fund anti-Likud, anti Netanyahu groups in Israel for tomorrow’s election."
Fox News said a congressional investigation into the matter is underway, and presidential contender Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, along with Rep. Lee Zeldin, R-N.Y., sent a letter about this to federal officials "to express our strong concerns over recent media reports."
What are the facts of the matter?
The basis of the claim
In September 2013, the State Department funded two projects run by OneVoice, a New York nonprofit. The OneVoice mission is clear -- to advance a two-state solution in Israel and the Palestinian territories.
"Through OneVoice, young grassroots activists in Israel and Palestine are equipped with the knowledge and skills to be heard as they build momentum and a constituency for the two-state solution locally and internationally," the organization wrote in its 2013 annual report.
Affiliates OneVoice Israel got $233,500 from the State Department to spend in Israel and OneVoice Palestine got another $115,776 to spend in the Palestinian Territories. That adds up to a little more than $349,000.
The question is: Do those contributions amount to funding "anti-Likud, anti-Netanyahu groups in Israel for tomorrow’s election"?
How OneVoice says the money was spent
Given that residents of the Palestinian Territories can’t vote in national Israeli elections, it’s hard to see how money spent there would influence voters in Israel. That leave us to account for $233,500.
Payton Knopf, senior director of global communications for OneVoice, said the money helped fund a series of "town-hall style meetings on university campuses and provided support to the Knesset Caucus for the Two-State Solution in organizing a meeting with 300 Israeli students and (Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud) Abbas in February 2014."
Knopf told us the State Department money was spent by November 2014 -- nearly four months ago. OneVoice, he said, never "spent any U.S. government funds in connection with the recent elections in Israel. Claims to the contrary are simply wrong."
There are two important points to unpack there. If OneVoice says it spent the money by November 2014, that would be before the Israeli elections were even scheduled. That happened in December after Netanyahu called for early elections.
The State Department said in a briefing that "no payment was made to OneVoice after November 2014."
That would contradict the way the claim in the blog was phrased. "Has been sending" says the money continues to flow. In this case the money was spent and disbursed months ago.
Second, while Netanyahu waffled on the notion of a two-state solution in the run-up to the Israeli elections, the prime minister had been on record supporting a two-state strategy in November and the months before it.
Read more:
Blog claims U.S. funded anti-Netanyahu election effort in Israel
I found the Senate investigation and again, there was no wrong doing by Obama and the State Department, though they suggest being more careful next time around, with restrictions on how the USA efforts could not be utilized for other purposes later on.
Senate report: State Dept. grant also aided campaign to unseat Netanyahu
Politifact
Has this Media Source failed a fact check? LET US KNOW HERE.
Share:
LEAST BIASED
These sources have minimal bias and use very few loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes). The reporting is factual and usually sourced. These are the most credible media sources. See all Least Biases sources.
Detailed Report
- Overall, this update reveals a slight leftward shift in Politifact’s fact checking selection, but not enough to move them from the least biased category.
Factual Reporting: HIGH
Country: USA
World Press Freedom Rank: USA 45/180
[...]
Analysis / Bias
In review, Politifact has been called left biased by some right leaning sources. In fact, there is a source called Politifact Bias that is dedicated to pointing out Politifact’s biases. Politifact is also a signatory of the International Fact Checking Network (IFCN), which outlines a code principles for credible fact checkers.
Politifact uses minimal loaded language in their articles and headlines such as this: Trump falsely claims NATO countries owe United States money for defense spending. All information is well sourced to credible media and/or direct statements from experts in the field or the politicians themselves. Fact Check selection leans slightly left as more right wing politicians are currently fact checked. This may be due to bias or the fact that Republicans currently control all branches of government and hence there is more to check. In fact, there was a recent academic study done that shows Politifact employs minimal bias through wording.
[...]
Politifact - Media Bias/Fact Check
I agree. if they were hiding something then mueller should have found it correct?well some did and were punished. others nope. I'd say anyone lying was stupid. but that isn't collusion and it isn't trump nor his campaign colluding. so still trying to figure where you're gonna find that needle in the needles.He basically has.....no prosecutor comes out and says soandso was exonerated....please show me that? Trump is right, he dealt with 3 years of bullshit like spying on his campaign(which you guys mocked, but he was RIGHT) and he didn't do shit.......not only him but NO AMERICAN helped Russia in ANY WAY........that's the closest you will ever get to a complete exoneration from a prosecutor.trump is saying that mueller has.
& no american, like flynn or manafort or papadopolous or sessions or kushner or donny jr lied to the feds about their russian contacts....
no reason to lie if there was nothing to hide.
which are where????only in a leftists dream.i'll tell you the same thing i've told another whackjob poster not too long ago:
so how many years ago was that exchange again? guess obama is running on CPT huh? when ARE those shenanigans you think are gonna happen anyway? i mean after all - he imposed sanctions on them thar roooskies, AND expelled roooskie spies, AND closed down their compounds. what has donny done? oh yea..... it took a veto act of congress to finally imposed even more stringent sanctions. & he didn't he just have one lifted against a russian?
why yes.... yes he did.
So...yes, Clinton sold Uranium rights to the Russians.
Thank you!
uranium one - - - debunked.
but i was talking about obama's so called 'incriminating' video.
proven. & with credible non biased links...
Good question....probably people like McCain and Graham, but Graham now see the democrats the way we do.......you may get that special counsel.......oooh and that's gonna be a good one......yummmmylet's get a special counsel and find out for sure. That seems fair. I mean two and a half years to find a nothing burger russia bot on trump, let's see if it was indeed on the other side from within.Debunked? how? the collusion story was debunked, there was a real investigation and you got nothing.....show me the investigation into Uranium One?So...yes, Clinton sold Uranium rights to the Russians.
Thank you!
uranium one - - - debunked.
but i was talking about obama's so called 'incriminating' video.
find the links i posted. hillary didn't get that uranium one deal done on her own, nor could have.
lol... why haven't the (R)s done that already? i mean they've had a hard on for decades to nail hillary on something.... ANYTHING. they could have gone after her for that... but didn't.... cause they couldn't cause they knew they would fail .... again.
