4 ms·
If we are to accept the 'Clinton Foundation spokesman' as the definitive source of truth, then in fairness we would have to accept the administration's claims o
by 13years 9y ago
If we are to accept the 'Clinton Foundation spokesman' as the definitive source of truth, then in fairness we would have to accept the administration's claims on Russia with the same merits.
As to why, there seems to be more of a corrupt veil that obscures Saudi Arabia's true role in the world vs. Russia.
For example
https://news.vice.com/story/saudi-arabia-is-the-top-sponsor-of-terrorism-in-u-k-report-says https://news.vice.com/story/saudi-arabia-is-the-top-sponsor-...
- scottmf 9y ago>If we are to accept the 'Clinton Foundation spokesman' as the definitive source of truth, then in fairness we would have to accept the administration's claims on Russia with the same merits. This is some bizarre logic.
- 13years 9y agoIs it really bizarre to apply the same standards? Can the accused verify themselves innocent in one instance but not in another?
- lern_too_spel 9y agoThe Clinton Foundation publicly discloses all its donors. https://www.clintonfoundation.org/contributors https://www.clintonfoundation.org/contributors
- 13years 9y agoTrump has stated there are no ties to Russia. So we can now be done with both of these concerns?
- lern_too_spel 9y agoWe have already found multiple ties to Russia, contradicting Trump's claims. The Clinton Foundation's disclosures match the totals in its mandatory financial reports. https://www.clintonfoundation.org/about/annual-financial-reports https://www.clintonfoundation.org/about/annual-financial-rep...