Quote:
Originally Posted by JiggyMac
Please post your positions on Saudi donations to the Clinton Foundation WHILE she was working at the State Department.
I wonder if Bill Clinton's paperwork was on the up and up when he gave his Moscow speech, once again - WHILE she was Secretary of State.
Once again, another nothing burger. Keep tryin' though.
This is
politifact's rebuttal to the claim that the Clinton's got paid by Russia for granting them a Uranium deal:
Quote:
"Russian speech money to Bill"
In 2010, Renaissance Capital, a Russian investment bank, paid Bill Clinton $500,000 to deliver a speech, according to Hillary Clinton’s 2010 financial disclosure form.
Some critics of the Clintons have suggested this speaking fee might have been an attempt by Renaissance Capital to curry favor with the State Department, which was involved in the Uranium One deal at the time.
But it’s important to keep in mind that Bill Clinton regularly delivers speeches for fees of $500,000 or higher — such as a $750,000 speech in Hong Kong in 2011, paid for by a Swedish communications company, and a $600,000 speech in the Netherlands, also in 2011, paid for by a Dutch finance corporation.
Also, Renaissance Capital regularly invites world leaders to speak at its events, like former British Prime Minister Tony Blair and former U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell.
That is one crap rebuttal. An investigation into Hillary for illegal partnering with Russia would seem much more warranted. I'm not a lawyer, but I just have this notion that you're not allowed to take huge sums of money from foreign oligarchs while permitting them Uranium purchases.
Are the news networks engaging in fake news by not reporting on Hillary's corruption? I do consider it lying by omission which should qualify as fake news in some important sense (although WSJ did a very thorough piece covering Hillary's corruption but it's behind a pay wall).