Shepherd Smith debunks his network’s Hillary Clinton ‘scandal’ story, infuriates viewers

I had to edit the original title as it contained too many characters.
From Washington Post:

Fox News’s Shepard Smith debunks his network’s favorite Hillary Clinton ‘scandal,’ infuriates viewers

For those who can't watch the video, here are a few tidbits.

Fox News anchor Shepherd Smith debunked what his own network has called the Hillary Clinton uranium “scandal,” infuriating Fox viewers, some of whom suggested that he ought go work for CNN or MSNBC.

Smith’s critique, which called President Trump’s accusations against Clinton “inaccurate,” was triggered by renewed calls from Republicans on Capitol Hill for a special counsel to investigate Clinton.

I'm not sure I would call pointing out "inaccuracies" a debunking. There seems to be many moving parts to this story. I am not familiar enough with the story to say one way or another. I am trying to wrap my head around this scandal but there is a lot to cover. I have generally shied away from this topic due to lack of interest. After the Sessions hearing yesterday, the topic peaked my interest. So I am trying to become more informed.

Smith called the statement “inaccurate in a number of ways,” noting that “the Clinton State Department had no power to veto or approve that transaction.” Rather, it must be approved by an interagency committee of the government consisting of nine department heads, including the Secretary of State.

I know there are a many threads pertaining to this story. I searched for uranium one and many, many threads popped up. I had no clue which thread to post this in so I just started a new one. Like I stated above, I do not know much about this case. I am trying to understand it.

. . . The accusation is predicated on the charge that Secretary Clinton approved the sale. She did not. A committee of nine evaluated the sale, the president approved the sale, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and others had to offer permits, and none of the uranium was exported for use by the U.S. to Russia.

At the end of the article, they add this:

The sense of betrayal among some was similar to sentiments expressed Wednesday about Fox’s Sean Hannity after he stopped defending Alabama U.S. Senate candidate Roy Moore and gave him 24 hours to explain what Hannity called “inconsistencies” in his responses to accusations of sexual misconduct with teenage girls when he was in his 30s.

I have many questions regarding this case and I have a LOT of reading to cover before I feel somewhat informed. Please bear with me.

My main draw to this story is a different angle though.
WaPo is known for their support of the Left. Fox News is obviously Right.
Do you think the Sheppard Smith and Sean Hannity are "betraying" the right or is WaPo projecting the image of betrayal?

Am I just misinterpreting all of this and way off base here?
I honestly have NO CLUE what to believe anymore. I am generally skeptical of all media. I find pretty much all news outlets biased towards one side or the other. Sheppard Smith seems to be bucking that trend here.

Also, could someone link a couple of the more informative threads regarding Uranium One? Like I stated, the search engine lists page after page of threads. I started at the top and I am trying to work my way through them.

How does this explain the millions of dollars that came into the Clinton Foundation after the sale of Uranium One?
What...$31 million was it?

This only tells me that the collusion is between the 9 departmant heads and Clinton. There is more corruption to be looked at. Who are these people? What did they have to gain from such an investment into the Foundation?

Instead if inaccuracies....let's look at the mirrors, not the smoke.

Smith called the statement “inaccurate in a number of ways,” noting that “the Clinton State Department had no power to veto or approve that transaction.

And that is where he is being naive. Also, President's don't have the power to take away our rights, but they do. (not one president in particular) I don't care what powers "officially" come with her job, I care about the powers she illegally uses. Or is given by someone else.

Accurate and unbiased reporting is what journalists are supposed to be doing, the fact that this article is even a thing highlights the real problem in America.

The fact that Hannity was defending Moore, anybody reporting a story like the uranium scandal while purposely including innaccuracies is the real betrayal.

a reply to: abago71

Heres the thing.

It is my belief that in order to truly have loyalty to something, a country, an ideal, a principle, a faith, it is necessary to be honest about the thing.

For example, I love my country. I am also aware that it has, both historically and currently, some serious problems which need addressing, one of which is that the few have control over the fate of the many, which is never acceptable. I love my country, but I am aware that historically speaking, it has been responsible for a great deal of wrong doing, which had effects which continue to damage other nations and regions, even today. I am also aware that even now, my nations government is damaging other nations by way of utterly unjustifiable operation of proxy armies, helping fund terrorism, refusing to cease military activity in the Middle East and North Africa, and making boatloads of cash for the MIC in the process.

Essentially, this country is not under the control of its citizens, but of those who have the least possible respect for the citizen, or indeed for their needs or their right to be considered as the first priority, over and above the wants and petty greeds of the hypercapitalist minority.

Just because I love my country, does not mean I am prepared to be dishonest about where I stand with regard to its behaviour on the world stage, or the way its government responds, or rather does not, to the needs and concerns of the people.

Similarly, this Shepherd Smith, would be doing no favours to the political standpoint he has adopted, if he was anything less than honest about the accuracy or lack thereof, of ANY statement he was asked to read on air, from ANY entity, from the government, to the President, to the CEO of a company, or any other person. The truth has a value which outstrips the value of any particular national flag, political theory, rhetoric, or other concept, and he seems to have taken that on board, which means that regardless of what his politics might be, you can rest assured that he holds the beliefs he does for reasons which, while one might not agree with his direction, are at least the issue of some sort of truth.

Regardless of what side of a political divide, an ocean, or a religious divide one might find oneself on, the truth is greater as a calling than anything else a person can possibly devote themselves to.

In this instance, Smith would have done nothing for the right, by just glossing over inaccuracies in a statement, by anyone, regardless of the source. The reason for this is simple. If accepting inaccuracy, or worse, lies, is necessary to support ones position, ones position is invalid. Smith knows this. He refused to omit or lie directly to cover those inaccuracies, felt it important that he bring attention to them, to alert people to the presence of a spanner in the works, because regardless of which side he might be on, he knows that accuracy, more importantly, the truth, is all that really matters, or ever did really matter.

He refuses to be a part of the growing trend for media inaccuracy, or just plain lies. I think that is a deeply refreshing thing to see, from ANY commentator, never mind one who happens to be on the political right, aligned with a news network which is nothing more than an anti-human propaganda machine! Its certainly better than I expected of any of their talking heads.

a reply to: abago71

How the conservative base doesn’t notice that even on Fox News.. the pro trump network, all the hard news people bash him and ONLY the opinion people push trumps propaganda..

The mental gymnastics required for these people is just Olympic level...

a reply to: TrueBrit
Good points. I agree with you.
I also acknowledge that my country is responsible for many dirty deeds as well. I am not proud of that.

I wish the American media would put the truth before profit and/or viewership. I think I preferred the days when I could just watch the news and not constantly want to yell at the tv.

a reply to: iTruthSeeker

How is shep wrong...

You claim he is naive when he did a very fact base analysis of the affair..

So.....


I’ve been saying forever that Sessions would likely be opening himself up to prosecution if he pushed charges that everyone knew were fake...

Plus I bet trumps stupid @$$ has run around the White House in his boxers screaming “find something on hillary!! Anything on hillary!!”

Making sure there are dozens of witnesses to testify or is a witch hunt..

a reply to: havok

It's a lie? What evidence of this cash transfer can you offer?

I am having some ISP issues right now.
Please don't think I'm bailing on the thread.
Satellite internet doesn't work well when it's storming.

The perks of country living.

a reply to: havok

The donations were years before she became the Secretary of State and had nothing to do with the sale!!!

Why would they pay off hillary before she was even in a position to help them AND she was never in a position to make that decision...

She is not who you would be paying off if you wanted to pay off someone to get this done...

It’s just another fake story out of the conservative crowd that will be investigated by a republican led congressional committee that finds no wrong doing..

Just like acorn, Benghazi, the irs scandals, planned parenthood, exc, exc, exc...


There are only 2 options..

A) the same people who are pushing the conspiracy are for some insane reason covering up for Clinton, and we wouldn’t ever have heard the conspiracy in he first place if that was the case..

B) the gop is lying, knew they were lying and just trying to entergize their base by playing them for suckers..

a reply to: JoshuaCox

When badgered yesterday by republican senators he finally said when asked when a special council would be appointed you need facts for that to happen. And yet people on here still argued that that was going to happen or was a possibility.

What the hell does Shepard know ?

Nothing.

He's not an investigative journalist.

His job most of the time was going around the world in 80 seconds.

a reply to: abago71

I'll try to pick this apart a little at a time. Here's the quote from Trump that Shep Smith is pointing out as being inaccurate...

“Hillary Clinton’s State Department approved the transfer of 20 percent of America’s uranium holdings to Russia, while nine investors in the deal funneled $145 million to the Clinton Foundation,” Trump said in the speech.

It wasn't the State Department that approved the transfer, but Hillary Clinton and eight other people as part of a nine person committee made up of heads of federal agencies. He's trying to stress that Hillary didn't have the power by herself to make this decision, but it still doesn't acknowledge the fact that she never should have been involved in that decision in the first place. Due to Clinton's ties to the original owner of UrAsia Energy (before it sold out to Uranium One), she should have been eliminated from the decision process.

“Here, the timing is inaccurate,” Smith said, noting that the source of the majority of the donations, Frank Giustra, said he sold his stake in the uranium company before the company was sold and before Clinton became secretary of State.

While Giustra may have sold his shares in UrAsia Energy before it was sold to Uranium One, Shep still leaves out the fact that there were investors from UrAsia and Uranium One that did indeed send millions of dollars to the Clinton Foundation besides Giustra. We also know that Bill Clinton also helped Giustra gain uranium mining contracts in Kazakhstan after Giustra had paid millions to the Clinton Foundation in 2009 while Hillary was Secretary of State.

the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and others had to offer permits, and none of the uranium was exported for use by the U.S. to Russia. That is Uranium One.”

While none of the uranium was exported to Russia from the United States, memos were found showing that uranium was exported to Canada and then exported again to other countries in which Russia had interests.

Ye...but I like this because we can have both sides to an opinion and not just one slanted BS like CNN, MSNBC and NBC.

a reply to: abago71

Wow! At least ONE person at Fox News is demonstrating the ability to use that grey matter that rests inside their skull. I'm sure he'll be fired in short order though for messing with the script. Can't have all those duped viewers waking up to reality or anything.

I've looked into the Uranium One thing and pretty much everything this guy said is accurate. This is yet another witch hunt that the right is trying to bring against Hillary Clinton and the facts are plain as day that she had nothing to do with it.

PS: Your link doesn't work.

originally posted by: havok
How does this explain the millions of dollars that came into the Clinton Foundation after the sale of Uranium One?
What...$31 million was it?

This only tells me that the collusion is between the 9 departmant heads and Clinton. There is more corruption to be looked at. Who are these people? What did they have to gain from such an investment into the Foundation?

Instead if inaccuracies....let's look at the mirrors, not the smoke.

What if it were just a coincidence and you are just jumping to conclusions? Do you have anything substantial to actually link the payment to the Uranium One deal? Because a simple coincidence is super weak evidence.

a reply to: JoshuaCox

The donations were years before she became the Secretary of State and had nothing to do with the sale!!!

That's incorrect and there are plenty of sources that support the information below...

In April 2015, The New York Times reported that, during the acquisition, the family foundation of Uranium One's chairman made $2.35 million in donations to the Clinton Foundation. The donations which were legal were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons, despite a prior agreement to do so. In addition, a Russian investment bank with ties to the Kremlin and which was promoting Uranium One stock paid Bill Clinton $500,000 for a speech in Moscow shortly after the acquisition was announced.[1][17]

en.wikipedia.org...

a reply to: abago71

This is the trouble with any society which decides matters based on rhetoric, rather than reality.

Reality is self evident. It requires no special learning to discern, but it can be obfuscated, and that is the purpose of these large media concerns, which may be why so many people are so jarred and uncomfortable, when faced with a man who refuses to occlude reality, for the benefit of either ratings or personal approval.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Fixed the link. Sorry. Having issues this morning.