[REAL TALK] Fox News viewers call for Shepard Smith firing after he breaks down Uranium 1 deal

[Motorcity Cobra]

[jaded]

FACT-CHECK: Shep Smith’s Fake ‘Debunking’ of Uranium One Story Ends in Humiliation, Embarrassment


Fox News’ Shepard Smith drew applause from liberal media outlets Tuesday in a “fact check” marred with mispronunciations and misrepresentations.

Smith, one of Fox’s top liberals and who frequently opposes the network’s narratives, spoke at length on his show Shepard Smith Reports after Attorney General Jeff Sessions floated the idea of a special counsel to investigate recent revelations surrounding the 2010 partial sale of Canadian firm Uranium One to Russian energy giant Rosatom. The sale was approved by the Obama administration as it included the sale of 20 percent of U.S. uranium to the Russian giant.

In laying out the widely reported story, Smith mispronounced the name of the Canadian investor at the center of the scandal (calling him ‘Gweh-strah,’ then ‘Gwy-strah’ instead of the correct ‘Joo-strah’); the name of the government body that reviewed the deal (‘Si-fuhs’ instead of the correct ‘Sif-ee-us); and the name of a senior State Department official involved in the review (‘Fernando’ instead of the accurate ‘Fernandez’). Smith also incorrectly describes Uranium One is a South African company. It was Canadian and is now, in fact, a Russian state-owned company.

The details of the Uranium One story have received broad coverage from outlets such as the New York Times and considerable attention on Fox News, including a one-hour special hosted by Bret Baier which aired in 2015 on the release of the book Clinton Cash.

Among the many things Smith objected to was Clinton’s ability to influence the deal’s approval. “The Clinton State Department had no power to approve or veto that transaction. It could do neither,” he said.

He correctly states that it was CFIUS — the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States — that made the decision. CFIUS is a cabinet-level committee consisting of representatives from several Departments and Agencies, including the Secretaries of the Treasury, State, Defense, etc. Smith claims that State was only one member and that the real decision was the President’s. However, Smith’s claim is misleading. While the final decision technically rests with the White House, CFIUS traditionally, and as far as is publicly known, operates by unanimous consent. Crucially, any one member can block a transaction. Such a “veto” can only be undone by the President, though there is no known case of the President overruling CFIUS since the committee was set up in 1975. In short, the Clinton State Department had the power to effectively gut the deal.

Hillary Clinton, in particular, has a history of resisting these sorts of deals. In one high profile case, a Dubai-based company withdrew from a deal that would put it in charge of several major US ports after a major public outcry. Then-Senator Hillary Clinton was an outspoken critic of the deal and went so far as to co-author a bill blocking the sale. In the case of Uranium One, an objection from a sitting committee member would have been crippling for the deal.

It is only by ignoring this de facto veto that Smith can dismiss Clinton’s role in the approval. Of course, his overall point that her corruption is somehow less severe because she was only one vote is irrelevant to the allegation being made. The particular circumstances of the decision are irrelevant — bribery statutes apply no matter how close the vote.

Smith also claims that the majority of the donations to the Clinton Foundation came via Frank Giustra — a mining financier who sold his stake in the uranium company before it was sold and before Clinton became secretary of State. “The timing is inaccurate,” Smith complains.

But it is Smith who is being inaccurate. As noted in Clinton Cash and the New York Times, the Clintons helped Giustra acquire Kazakh uranium assets in 2005. Mukhtar Dzhakishev, then head of the Kazakh state nuclear agency, who met with the Clintons in Chappaqua, declared in 2010 that Hillary Clinton extorted and pressured Kazakh officials to grant those uranium concessions to Giustra. Shortly after they granted those concessions, $30 million was dropped into Clinton Foundation coffers by Giustra.
Smith never mentions any of this.

“The timing is inaccurate” only if you exclude key events.

Smith also fails to account for the fact that Uranium One’s Chairman Ian Telfer moved $2.3 million, much it undisclosed, to the Clinton Foundation as the deal was being reviewed by CFIUS. Furthermore, Smith falsely claims that the Clinton Foundation disclosed these donations to the charity but simply forgot to reveal the individual names of the donors. This is entirely false.

But Smith is not done excluding key facts which confirm the timing of funds flowing to the Clintons. Smith also strangely omits the $500,000 speaking fee Bill Clinton was paid by a Russian bank involved with Uranium One during the review process.

So, was Hillary Clinton involved in the Uranium One CFIUS review? Smith says we can take her word that she wasn’t and then trots out former Assistant Secretary of State Fernandez to say her hands are clean. Smith never bothers to describe to his audience who Fernandez actually is. A quick search of the Podesta emails on Wikileaks reveals him to be a Clinton partisan, writing to Podesta “I would like to do all I can to support Secretary Clinton and would welcome your advice and help in steering me to the right persons in the campaign.” Those words were written less than a week before Fernandez first went public with his declaration of Clinton’s innocence. One would expect Fox News viewers to be interested in such information.

But Smith isn’t done with his misrepresentations or falsehoods. He then boldly declares that no uranium from Uranium One’s US mines has left the country. A simple look at reporting by the New York Times and The Hill reveals that, in fact, it has happened on multiple occasions. Again, one would expect this to be of interest to Fox News viewers.

Fact checks should include all major transactions that relate to the question at hand. One can only wonder why Shepard Smith decided to include misleading analysis while excluding central facts which run counter to the claims he is making.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-journal...embarrassment/

[North Star]

****ing Brietbart news ^^^

Yeah, the alt-right fantasy viewers don't like to hear or be told facts that don't fit their narrative. The **** they are spoon fed daily by Briebart, Drudge, and most everyone else at Fox News is classic, practiced propaganda, designed to manipulate and influence their emotions. Because emotions are something that are stronger than facts. And when the lies are repeated enough, these people "feel" it's the truth, no matter how many facts and truths are presented to them.

The really sad part it, those viewers and readers are so far brainwashed that they believe everyone else that doesn't share their views are the brainwashed ones. Classic case of a lunatic shouting out, "I'm not crazy, you're the crazy ones!!".

[jas]

boxingscene calls for motorcity cobra to step down after spamming pro-liberal threads

[MOTHERDUCKER]

.
The really sad part it, those viewers and readers are so far brainwashed that they believe everyone else that doesn't share their views are the brainwashed ones. Classic case of a lunatic shouting out, "I'm not crazy, you're the crazy ones!!".

Sounds like the left.. funny that.. should probably add racist.. bigoted along with brainwashed tho.. those are the liberal go to words when someone has a differing opinion right?

[North Star]

Sounds like the left.. funny that.. should probably add racist.. bigoted along with brainwashed tho.. those are the liberal go to words when someone has a differing opinion right?

When the GOP has legislation that is exactly the opposite of what they tell their voter base, the base needs to know that they are being lied too. They need to understand what is truth and what is being sensationalized to massage their feelings to produce an emotional response. They use that emotion to manipulate their base into thinking they really are being taking care of by the elected GOP leaders.

A perfect example is the Tax bill right now. It does absolutely everything in favor of the rich. There is no benefit for the poor and middle class. Then the GOP talking point is, "Well the average middle class family will get $1200 dollars back!", which is partially true but neglects all the factors that may end up costing you via deductions that the tax payer may no longer report. I mean, they have even reversed an act that lets us small guys fight large corporations when we are wronged. A bank or corporation can **** us over and we can no longer take them to court. There's stuff like this going on and on and their base just doesn't believe it effects them.

The other way they try to manipulate if coining derogatory terms of their opponents/enemies; i.e Libtards, SJW, snowflakes, cuck, etc. They've created the illusion that the Left/Democrats are the enemy. Enemy is a very strong word and has lasting mental impressions on the individual when they are told that for a period of time. The truth is that they are not the enemy. They are fellow citizens with a different view or angle on how legislation and policies should be addressed to society, that's really it. We should always be looking to compromise our beliefs for a greater good for everyone, not just Right or Left.

[B.UTLER]

Big burger nothing even sessions won't create special counsel. 9 agencies approve yet trumpdiots like to say it's Clinton that approved it.

I do question $140 million donation to Clinton foundation. The faq would someone give that much even if that ain't related to uranium one.

[Sugar Adam Ali]

When the GOP has legislation that is exactly the opposite of what they tell their voter base, the base needs to know that they are being lied too. They need to understand what is truth and what is being sensationalized to massage their feelings to produce an emotional response. They use that emotion to manipulate their base into thinking they really are being taking care of by the elected GOP leaders.

A perfect example is the Tax bill right now. It does absolutely everything in favor of the rich. There is no benefit for the poor and middle class. Then the GOP talking point is, "Well the average middle class family will get $1200 dollars back!", which is partially true but neglects all the factors that may end up costing you via deductions that the tax payer may no longer report. I mean, they have even reversed an act that lets us small guys fight large corporations when we are wronged. A bank or corporation can **** us over and we can no longer take them to court. There's stuff like this going on and on and their base just doesn't believe it effects them.

The other way they try to manipulate if coining derogatory terms of their opponents/enemies; i.e Libtards, SJW, snowflakes, cuck, etc. They've created the illusion that the Left/Democrats are the enemy. Enemy is a very strong word and has lasting mental impressions on the individual when they are told that for a period of time. The truth is that they are not the enemy. They are fellow citizens with a different view or angle on how legislation and policies should be addressed to society, that's really it. We should always be looking to compromise our beliefs for a greater good for everyone, not just Right or Left.

****ing Brietbart news ^^^

Yeah, the alt-right fantasy viewers don't like to hear or be told facts that don't fit their narrative. The **** they are spoon fed daily by Briebart, Drudge, and most everyone else at Fox News is classic, practiced propaganda, designed to manipulate and influence their emotions. Because emotions are something that are stronger than facts. And when the lies are repeated enough, these people "feel" it's the truth, no matter how many facts and truths are presented to them.

The really sad part it, those viewers and readers are so far brainwashed that they believe everyone else that doesn't share their views are the brainwashed ones. Classic case of a lunatic shouting out, "I'm not crazy, you're the crazy ones!!".

FACT-CHECK: Shep Smith’s Fake ‘Debunking’ of Uranium One Story Ends in Humiliation, Embarrassment


Fox News’ Shepard Smith drew applause from liberal media outlets Tuesday in a “fact check” marred with mispronunciations and misrepresentations.

Smith, one of Fox’s top liberals and who frequently opposes the network’s narratives, spoke at length on his show Shepard Smith Reports after Attorney General Jeff Sessions floated the idea of a special counsel to investigate recent revelations surrounding the 2010 partial sale of Canadian firm Uranium One to Russian energy giant Rosatom. The sale was approved by the Obama administration as it included the sale of 20 percent of U.S. uranium to the Russian giant.

In laying out the widely reported story, Smith mispronounced the name of the Canadian investor at the center of the scandal (calling him ‘Gweh-strah,’ then ‘Gwy-strah’ instead of the correct ‘Joo-strah’); the name of the government body that reviewed the deal (‘Si-fuhs’ instead of the correct ‘Sif-ee-us); and the name of a senior State Department official involved in the review (‘Fernando’ instead of the accurate ‘Fernandez’). Smith also incorrectly describes Uranium One is a South African company. It was Canadian and is now, in fact, a Russian state-owned company.

The details of the Uranium One story have received broad coverage from outlets such as the New York Times and considerable attention on Fox News, including a one-hour special hosted by Bret Baier which aired in 2015 on the release of the book Clinton Cash.

Among the many things Smith objected to was Clinton’s ability to influence the deal’s approval. “The Clinton State Department had no power to approve or veto that transaction. It could do neither,” he said.

He correctly states that it was CFIUS — the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States — that made the decision. CFIUS is a cabinet-level committee consisting of representatives from several Departments and Agencies, including the Secretaries of the Treasury, State, Defense, etc. Smith claims that State was only one member and that the real decision was the President’s. However, Smith’s claim is misleading. While the final decision technically rests with the White House, CFIUS traditionally, and as far as is publicly known, operates by unanimous consent. Crucially, any one member can block a transaction. Such a “veto” can only be undone by the President, though there is no known case of the President overruling CFIUS since the committee was set up in 1975. In short, the Clinton State Department had the power to effectively gut the deal.

Hillary Clinton, in particular, has a history of resisting these sorts of deals. In one high profile case, a Dubai-based company withdrew from a deal that would put it in charge of several major US ports after a major public outcry. Then-Senator Hillary Clinton was an outspoken critic of the deal and went so far as to co-author a bill blocking the sale. In the case of Uranium One, an objection from a sitting committee member would have been crippling for the deal.

It is only by ignoring this de facto veto that Smith can dismiss Clinton’s role in the approval. Of course, his overall point that her corruption is somehow less severe because she was only one vote is irrelevant to the allegation being made. The particular circumstances of the decision are irrelevant — bribery statutes apply no matter how close the vote.

Smith also claims that the majority of the donations to the Clinton Foundation came via Frank Giustra — a mining financier who sold his stake in the uranium company before it was sold and before Clinton became secretary of State. “The timing is inaccurate,” Smith complains.

But it is Smith who is being inaccurate. As noted in Clinton Cash and the New York Times, the Clintons helped Giustra acquire Kazakh uranium assets in 2005. Mukhtar Dzhakishev, then head of the Kazakh state nuclear agency, who met with the Clintons in Chappaqua, declared in 2010 that Hillary Clinton extorted and pressured Kazakh officials to grant those uranium concessions to Giustra. Shortly after they granted those concessions, $30 million was dropped into Clinton Foundation coffers by Giustra.
Smith never mentions any of this.

“The timing is inaccurate” only if you exclude key events.

Smith also fails to account for the fact that Uranium One’s Chairman Ian Telfer moved $2.3 million, much it undisclosed, to the Clinton Foundation as the deal was being reviewed by CFIUS. Furthermore, Smith falsely claims that the Clinton Foundation disclosed these donations to the charity but simply forgot to reveal the individual names of the donors. This is entirely false.

But Smith is not done excluding key facts which confirm the timing of funds flowing to the Clintons. Smith also strangely omits the $500,000 speaking fee Bill Clinton was paid by a Russian bank involved with Uranium One during the review process.

So, was Hillary Clinton involved in the Uranium One CFIUS review? Smith says we can take her word that she wasn’t and then trots out former Assistant Secretary of State Fernandez to say her hands are clean. Smith never bothers to describe to his audience who Fernandez actually is. A quick search of the Podesta emails on Wikileaks reveals him to be a Clinton partisan, writing to Podesta “I would like to do all I can to support Secretary Clinton and would welcome your advice and help in steering me to the right persons in the campaign.” Those words were written less than a week before Fernandez first went public with his declaration of Clinton’s innocence. One would expect Fox News viewers to be interested in such information.

But Smith isn’t done with his misrepresentations or falsehoods. He then boldly declares that no uranium from Uranium One’s US mines has left the country. A simple look at reporting by the New York Times and The Hill reveals that, in fact, it has happened on multiple occasions. Again, one would expect this to be of interest to Fox News viewers.

Fact checks should include all major transactions that relate to the question at hand. One can only wonder why Shepard Smith decided to include misleading analysis while excluding central facts which run counter to the claims he is making.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-journal...embarrassment/

Northstar must be the newest liberal, or someone's alt


Care to respond to jaded's quote that actually has facts?

[Sugar Adam Ali]

FACT-CHECK: Shep Smith’s Fake ‘Debunking’ of Uranium One Story Ends in Humiliation, Embarrassment


Fox News’ Shepard Smith drew applause from liberal media outlets Tuesday in a “fact check” marred with mispronunciations and misrepresentations.

Smith, one of Fox’s top liberals and who frequently opposes the network’s narratives, spoke at length on his show Shepard Smith Reports after Attorney General Jeff Sessions floated the idea of a special counsel to investigate recent revelations surrounding the 2010 partial sale of Canadian firm Uranium One to Russian energy giant Rosatom. The sale was approved by the Obama administration as it included the sale of 20 percent of U.S. uranium to the Russian giant.

In laying out the widely reported story, Smith mispronounced the name of the Canadian investor at the center of the scandal (calling him ‘Gweh-strah,’ then ‘Gwy-strah’ instead of the correct ‘Joo-strah’); the name of the government body that reviewed the deal (‘Si-fuhs’ instead of the correct ‘Sif-ee-us); and the name of a senior State Department official involved in the review (‘Fernando’ instead of the accurate ‘Fernandez’). Smith also incorrectly describes Uranium One is a South African company. It was Canadian and is now, in fact, a Russian state-owned company.

The details of the Uranium One story have received broad coverage from outlets such as the New York Times and considerable attention on Fox News, including a one-hour special hosted by Bret Baier which aired in 2015 on the release of the book Clinton Cash.

Among the many things Smith objected to was Clinton’s ability to influence the deal’s approval. “The Clinton State Department had no power to approve or veto that transaction. It could do neither,” he said.

He correctly states that it was CFIUS — the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States — that made the decision. CFIUS is a cabinet-level committee consisting of representatives from several Departments and Agencies, including the Secretaries of the Treasury, State, Defense, etc. Smith claims that State was only one member and that the real decision was the President’s. However, Smith’s claim is misleading. While the final decision technically rests with the White House, CFIUS traditionally, and as far as is publicly known, operates by unanimous consent. Crucially, any one member can block a transaction. Such a “veto” can only be undone by the President, though there is no known case of the President overruling CFIUS since the committee was set up in 1975. In short, the Clinton State Department had the power to effectively gut the deal.

Hillary Clinton, in particular, has a history of resisting these sorts of deals. In one high profile case, a Dubai-based company withdrew from a deal that would put it in charge of several major US ports after a major public outcry. Then-Senator Hillary Clinton was an outspoken critic of the deal and went so far as to co-author a bill blocking the sale. In the case of Uranium One, an objection from a sitting committee member would have been crippling for the deal.

It is only by ignoring this de facto veto that Smith can dismiss Clinton’s role in the approval. Of course, his overall point that her corruption is somehow less severe because she was only one vote is irrelevant to the allegation being made. The particular circumstances of the decision are irrelevant — bribery statutes apply no matter how close the vote.

Smith also claims that the majority of the donations to the Clinton Foundation came via Frank Giustra — a mining financier who sold his stake in the uranium company before it was sold and before Clinton became secretary of State. “The timing is inaccurate,” Smith complains.

But it is Smith who is being inaccurate. As noted in Clinton Cash and the New York Times, the Clintons helped Giustra acquire Kazakh uranium assets in 2005. Mukhtar Dzhakishev, then head of the Kazakh state nuclear agency, who met with the Clintons in Chappaqua, declared in 2010 that Hillary Clinton extorted and pressured Kazakh officials to grant those uranium concessions to Giustra. Shortly after they granted those concessions, $30 million was dropped into Clinton Foundation coffers by Giustra.
Smith never mentions any of this.

“The timing is inaccurate” only if you exclude key events.

Smith also fails to account for the fact that Uranium One’s Chairman Ian Telfer moved $2.3 million, much it undisclosed, to the Clinton Foundation as the deal was being reviewed by CFIUS. Furthermore, Smith falsely claims that the Clinton Foundation disclosed these donations to the charity but simply forgot to reveal the individual names of the donors. This is entirely false.

But Smith is not done excluding key facts which confirm the timing of funds flowing to the Clintons. Smith also strangely omits the $500,000 speaking fee Bill Clinton was paid by a Russian bank involved with Uranium One during the review process.

So, was Hillary Clinton involved in the Uranium One CFIUS review? Smith says we can take her word that she wasn’t and then trots out former Assistant Secretary of State Fernandez to say her hands are clean. Smith never bothers to describe to his audience who Fernandez actually is. A quick search of the Podesta emails on Wikileaks reveals him to be a Clinton partisan, writing to Podesta “I would like to do all I can to support Secretary Clinton and would welcome your advice and help in steering me to the right persons in the campaign.” Those words were written less than a week before Fernandez first went public with his declaration of Clinton’s innocence. One would expect Fox News viewers to be interested in such information.

But Smith isn’t done with his misrepresentations or falsehoods. He then boldly declares that no uranium from Uranium One’s US mines has left the country. A simple look at reporting by the New York Times and The Hill reveals that, in fact, it has happened on multiple occasions. Again, one would expect this to be of interest to Fox News viewers.

Fact checks should include all major transactions that relate to the question at hand. One can only wonder why Shepard Smith decided to include misleading analysis while excluding central facts which run counter to the claims he is making.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-journal...embarrassment/

End/thread


But let the poor b@&$/ liberals spout nonsense, it's the only thing they are good at in life,, saying dumbshyt

[jaded]

End/thread


But let the poor b@&$/ liberals spout nonsense, it's the only thing they are good at in life,, saying dumbshyt

Not one other source has validated Shepard Smith's typical gay emotional tirade...and oddly enough only Foxnews gave him a platform to voice it. Shepard is still upset that his boyfriend Robbie Mooks's boss Hillary lost the election leaving Robbie unemployed.

Shepard Smith has never been taken seriously as a news anchor (maybe because of his mascara over-usage as well)...he only got the job on Foxnews because he was the only staff member to allow Roger Ailes to have his way with him.