Fox News viewers demand reporter Shepard Smith be fired for debunking 'Clinton uranium scandal'

Fox News viewers demand reporter Shepard Smith be fired for debunking 'Clinton uranium scandal'

Once again Sheppard Smith is ANGERING viewers on his home network, FOX:

Fox News viewers are calling for a TV anchor to be fired because he debunked an erroneous conspiracy theory about Hillary Clinton.

Shepard Smith, who has been at Fox for more than two decades, discredited the theory which his own network has branded the Clinton uranium “scandal” in a five-minute segment.

What has FOX viewers so angry? The segment in question:



Smith on-air went on to SAY:

“The accusation is predicated on the charge that Secretary Clinton approved the sale. She did not,” he said. “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 US to Russia.”

Smith also pointed out the donations came from a Canadian who SOLD his shares in the company three years before the uranium deal:

Smith also drew attention to the fact the Clinton Foundation donations in question came from Frank Giustra - the founder of the uranium company in Canada.

But Mr Giustra “says he sold his stake in the company back in 2007” three years before the uranium Russia deal and a year and a half before Ms Clinton became secretary of state.

FOX Viewers were none-to-impressed to say the LEAST:

“Did anyone watch Shep Smith just explain how Hillary Clinton had nothing to do with Uranium deal? What a joke Fox News!!! Send him to CNN,” one angry viewer tweeted.

Another said: “Get Shepard Smith off of Fox. He's arrogant and doing his own spin. Nobody knows how deep the left's conspiracy goes and Shepherd Smith has zero inside info because nobody trusts him. Out!”

Sheppard Smith may not be alone however...

The furore comes after several Fox News employees recently complained the channel was beginning to feel "like an extension of the Trump White House” in the wake of its recent political coverage.

Should Smith be FIRED for triggering Fox viewers? Or should he just quit?

a reply to: DanteGaland I say keep him on. He is like the morning joe of Fox.

a reply to: DanteGaland

Fox's Diversity blend will be off if they fire Shep.

Never go against the cult. Everyone knows that!

Debunking?

www.breitbart.com...

a reply to: DanteGaland

I'm not a fan of any flavor of the pretty people on TV, but the thing is, if you actually watched the interview you posted, he debunked absolutely nothing.

There is much more evidence FOR wrongdoing by many government officials in this whole U1 thing when you look into the details, you can read the Podesta emails (among other sources which have been posted on this very site) yourself you know.

I think that's the real reason people are mad at him. Not because he was talking about a story people did not agree with, but because that story involved about as much "evidence" as anything my colon can produce.

originally posted by: DanteGaland
Fox News viewers demand reporter Shepard Smith be fired for debunking 'Clinton uranium scandal'




The furore comes after several Fox News employees recently complained the channel was beginning to feel "like an extension of the Trump White House” in the wake of its recent political coverage.

Is Fox texting the White House for talking points like Mika does?

Funny how things are when the shoe is on the other foot.

To be clear it wasn't for "debunking" the story. It was for all the factual errors in his report. Unlike the liberal outlets who gulp the koolaid, false reports on Fox News aren't tolerated by the viewers.

a reply to: DanteGaland

"Approved by nine Dept. heads, not Hillary Clinton."

So those heads werent all DNC/Obama/Hillary cronies?

Was Hillary not one of those heads?

a reply to: jjkenobi haha you are a funny person....oh wait your serious

originally posted by: jjkenobi
Unlike the liberal outlets who gulp the koolaid, false reports on Fox News aren't tolerated by the viewers.

Thanks. I needed a good laugh today!

a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

I didn't know Hillary had nine heads like a hydra!

originally posted by: jjkenobi
To be clear it wasn't for "debunking" the story. It was for all the factual errors in his report. Unlike the liberal outlets who gulp the koolaid, false reports on Fox News aren't tolerated by the viewers.

LMAO, this made me laugh. Faux news and any conservative media rarely have facts in their stories, just spin, cherry picking, insinuate, conspiracy theories and outright lies.

False reports are their bread and butter.

Statements made on FOX

I was wrong they do manage to tell the truth %10 of the time. While %78 of the time they are doing what I said they do.

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
a reply to: DanteGaland

"Approved by nine Dept. heads, not Hillary Clinton."

So those heads werent all DNC/Obama/Hillary cronies?

Was Hillary not one of those heads?

Like the State Dept Official/Dept Head on the Committee didn't report to the Head of the State Dept or follow their directives.

originally posted by: jjkenobi
To be clear it wasn't for "debunking" the story. It was for all the factual errors in his report. Unlike the liberal outlets who gulp the koolaid, false reports on Fox News aren't tolerated by the viewers.

Topic seems to suggest otherwise.

Give the people what they want to hear or else. Facts be damned. You'll be thrown under the bus at warp speed.

a reply to: jacquesdarippa

LMAO, this made me laugh. Faux news and any conservative media rarely have facts in their stories, just spin, cherry picking, insinuate, conspiracy theories and outright lies. False reports are their bread and butter.

I forgot how many stories CNN has been forced to retract this year.

I lost count earlier this year around thirty.

When is everyone going to realize that its all "fake news". This was not even discussed 10-15 years ago on ATS. It was taken for common conspiracy knowledge. They are really nothing more than the PR arm of the Deep State. They don't care anything about giving you the information so you, as a well educated, informed citizen can come up with your own opinions and viewpoints. They want you to think, buy and believe what they want you to think buy and believe. They have Behavioral psychologists, Sociologists, Social engineers etc. etc. who do nothing but sit around and think of how they can manipulate us all better into acting the way they want to. Turn them all off.

a reply to: DanteGaland

Well, they could always pay some people to go piss and moan to advertisers on his program. That's the new tactic du jour of how to silence voices you don't like.

Somebody call Media Matters. It's their playbook.

originally posted by: Cancerwarrior


I forgot how many stories CNN has been forced to retract this year.

I

That is the difference though, if a liberal outlet gets something wrong they retract it and attempt to correct it. Where as faux news will never mention a story again if proven wrong or continue on with a story no matter how many times it will get debunked.

a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

What does that even mean? The vague innuendo is consistently off the charts. Were they cronies? What made them any more or less cronies than any other department heads under any administration?

Do you have specific information to share or are you just assuming these were all people who would act in bad faith because of a few hundred thousand in donations to the Clinton Foundation?

Furthermore, Clinton herself didn't attend the relevant meetings or cast the vote. That was all delegated to Jose W Fernandez who has stated publicly that Clinton didn't attempt to influence his vote. Now, maybe he's lying. In fact, maybe all these "cronies" met up at Hydra HQ and Baroness Hillary von Clintonstein, cackling sinisterly in her supervillain pantsuit, instructed them all to vote to approve the deal or be replaced with android dopplegangers.

But is there even one tiny shred of evidence of that? I mean, even a little teeny tiny bit of evidence that Clinton exerted any influence at all on the CFIUS vote?