What's funny is your acceptance of FOX as "the only mainstream network that actually gives strait news" while asserting that the other 7 stations you mentioned are biased by the left and can't possibly offer a fair assessment. Only yours is right. I'll give you credit for this statement, that "their political shows don't operate under the pretext of being unbiased." No doubt about that. They know how to manipulate their viewers by letting them hear only what they want to hear, to re-enforce what they believe is right without question.
I no longer get much 'news' from television as i'm disgusted that they have all succumbed to using such partisan talking heads or commentators who are loud, obnoxious and talk over each other. I can say this, MSNBC is not a news station, it is a station delivering commentary about previously published news, although they have on occasion 'broken a story'. I get the bulk of my news from various sources on the net and do my own fact checking/cross referencing. I haven't watched CNN in several years and will only rarely catch a network station news program, FOX is banned in my home as it's basically all propaganda all the time, Pravda West if you will. Shep Smith was about the only person I could stomach. There are too many good writers for me to only stick to a single news source.
Since you insist on having 'evidence' on your side over the uranium 'scandal', perhaps then you can speak to this : Where is the Quid Pro Quo ?
"What's the evidence in Clinton's favor? Even if Clinton had wanted to make sure the sale was approved, it wouldn't have been possible for her to do it on her own. CFIUS is made up of not only the Secretary of State, but also the secretaries of Treasury, Justice, Homeland Security, Commerce, Defense, and Energy, as well as the heads of the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative and the Office of Science and Technology Policy.
The Director of National Intelligence and the Secretary of Labor are non-voting members, and CFIUS's work is also observed by representatives of other agencies like the National Security Council and the Office of Management and Budget. The idea that Clinton could have convinced all those officials and all those departments to change their position on the sale, even if she had wanted to, borders on the absurd.
Furthermore, the official who was the State Department's representative on CFIUS at the time, Jose Hernandez, told Time magazine that Clinton did not participate in the evaluation of this deal: "Secretary Clinton never intervened with me on any CFIUS matter," he said.
So in this case, we have no evidence of a quid pro quo, and we don't have evidence that Hillary Clinton took any action at all with regard to this sale, in favor of the interests of the donors or otherwise. In interviews, Schweitzer has referred repeated to "dozens of examples" and "a pattern" in which donations are made to the foundation and official action by Hillary Clinton occurs thereafter. His book hasn't come out, so we don't yet know what he's referring to, but in the uranium case, there doesn't appear to be any official action Hillary Clinton took one way or another.
Schweitzer was pressed on that point yesterday by both Chris Wallace and George Stephanopoulos, and he gave essentially the same answer both times. Here's what he said on Fox News Sunday:
Well, here's what's important to keep in mind: it was one of nine agencies, but any one of those agencies had veto power. So, she could have stopped the deal. So, what's interesting about this, of all those nine agencies, who was the most hawkish on these types of issues? Hillary Clinton.
So the alleged wrongdoing isn't that Clinton helped the people who gave donations to the foundation, it's that she failed to oppose them, something that the secretaries of defense, treasury, and all the other agencies also failed to do, with or without donations to foundations controlled by members of their families."
I'd also like to ask you to explain WHY you support 'Citizen United', and the theory that corporations are people ?
Thanks
