Peter Schweizer's Clinton Cash reportedly does not prove its speculative attacks on the Clintons and even relies on a hoax press release to support a claim, according to ThinkProgress.

Clinton Cash will be released on May 5, and media reports have already hyped the book's supposed revelations about connections between Hillary Clinton's time as secretary of state, donations to the Clinton Foundation, and paid speeches given by the Clintons.

According to ThinkProgress, which obtained an advance copy of the book, "Schweizer makes clear that he does not intend to present a smoking gun":

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2015/04/21/...not/203361

So its one guy's attempt at a cash grab while accusing a politician of doing the same thing.

Oy.

"Media Matters"

Brilliant!

Quote:“Short of someone involved coming forward to give sworn testimony, we don’t know what might or might not have been said in private conversations, the exact nature of the transition, or why people in power make the decision they do,” he writes. Later, he concludes, “We cannot ultimately know what goes on in their minds and ultimately provide the links between the money they took and the benefits that subsequently accrued to themselves, their friends, and their associates.”

(04-22-2015 11:08 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  "Media Matters"

Is there something in that article that you disagree with?

(04-22-2015 11:15 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(04-22-2015 11:08 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  "Media Matters"

Is there something in that article that you disagree with?

It uses Think Progress as a source...

(04-22-2015 11:16 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(04-22-2015 11:15 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(04-22-2015 11:08 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  "Media Matters"

Is there something in that article that you disagree with?

It uses Think Progress as a source...

So you are going to dismiss the story based on the source?

(04-22-2015 11:17 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(04-22-2015 11:16 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(04-22-2015 11:15 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(04-22-2015 11:08 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  "Media Matters"

Is there something in that article that you disagree with?

It uses Think Progress as a source...

So you are going to dismiss the story based on the source?

You bet your ass. It's a joke source's opinion which is cited and then the other joke source pretends that opinion is fact.

This whole article is a glorified "nuh uh."

There isn't a single useful piece of information in this entire article to anybody with an unbiased eye.

In fairness Fit, that described everything MediaMatters vomits out there.

(04-22-2015 11:19 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(04-22-2015 11:17 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(04-22-2015 11:16 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(04-22-2015 11:15 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(04-22-2015 11:08 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  "Media Matters"

Is there something in that article that you disagree with?

It uses Think Progress as a source...

So you are going to dismiss the story based on the source?

You bet your ass. It's a joke source's opinion which is cited and then the other joke source pretends that opinion is fact.

This whole article is a glorified "nuh uh."

There isn't a single useful piece of information in this entire article to anybody with an unbiased eye.

What about the quote from the author. Are you going to dismiss that also?

The National Enquirer broke the Edwards scandal.

I suppose that didn't happen either based on the reputation of the source.

(04-22-2015 11:20 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(04-22-2015 11:19 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(04-22-2015 11:17 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(04-22-2015 11:16 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(04-22-2015 11:15 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  Is there something in that article that you disagree with?

It uses Think Progress as a source...

So you are going to dismiss the story based on the source?

You bet your ass. It's a joke source's opinion which is cited and then the other joke source pretends that opinion is fact.

This whole article is a glorified "nuh uh."

There isn't a single useful piece of information in this entire article to anybody with an unbiased eye.

What about the quote from the author. Are you going to dismiss that also?

The National Enquirer broke the Edwards scandal.

I suppose that didn't happen either based on the reputation of the source.

Bless your poor little heart.

(04-22-2015 11:22 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(04-22-2015 11:20 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(04-22-2015 11:19 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(04-22-2015 11:17 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(04-22-2015 11:16 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  It uses Think Progress as a source...

So you are going to dismiss the story based on the source?

You bet your ass. It's a joke source's opinion which is cited and then the other joke source pretends that opinion is fact.

This whole article is a glorified "nuh uh."

There isn't a single useful piece of information in this entire article to anybody with an unbiased eye.

What about the quote from the author. Are you going to dismiss that also?

The National Enquirer broke the Edwards scandal.

I suppose that didn't happen either based on the reputation of the source.

Bless your poor little heart.

Don't hate the source, hate the facts.

(04-22-2015 11:25 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(04-22-2015 11:22 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(04-22-2015 11:20 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(04-22-2015 11:19 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(04-22-2015 11:17 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  So you are going to dismiss the story based on the source?

You bet your ass. It's a joke source's opinion which is cited and then the other joke source pretends that opinion is fact.

This whole article is a glorified "nuh uh."

There isn't a single useful piece of information in this entire article to anybody with an unbiased eye.

What about the quote from the author. Are you going to dismiss that also?

The National Enquirer broke the Edwards scandal.

I suppose that didn't happen either based on the reputation of the source.

Bless your poor little heart.

Don't hate the source, hate the facts.

"facts"

Not being able to prove Romney didn't pay his taxes didn't stop Reid from claiming it repeatedly.

Now proof is needed. lol

(04-22-2015 11:20 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(04-22-2015 11:19 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(04-22-2015 11:17 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(04-22-2015 11:16 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(04-22-2015 11:15 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  Is there something in that article that you disagree with?

It uses Think Progress as a source...

So you are going to dismiss the story based on the source?

You bet your ass. It's a joke source's opinion which is cited and then the other joke source pretends that opinion is fact.

This whole article is a glorified "nuh uh."

There isn't a single useful piece of information in this entire article to anybody with an unbiased eye.

What about the quote from the author. Are you going to dismiss that also?

The National Enquirer broke the Edwards scandal.

I suppose that didn't happen either based on the reputation of the source.

The National Enquirer has a better/more unbiased reputation than Media Matters.

(04-22-2015 11:40 AM)Crebman Wrote:  

(04-22-2015 11:20 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(04-22-2015 11:19 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(04-22-2015 11:17 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(04-22-2015 11:16 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  It uses Think Progress as a source...

So you are going to dismiss the story based on the source?

You bet your ass. It's a joke source's opinion which is cited and then the other joke source pretends that opinion is fact.

This whole article is a glorified "nuh uh."

There isn't a single useful piece of information in this entire article to anybody with an unbiased eye.

What about the quote from the author. Are you going to dismiss that also?

The National Enquirer broke the Edwards scandal.

I suppose that didn't happen either based on the reputation of the source.

The National Enquirer has a better/more unbiased reputation than Media Matters.

Thinking adults excluded.

(04-22-2015 11:30 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  Not being able to prove Romney didn't pay his taxes didn't stop Reid from claiming it repeatedly.

So. Reid was wrong to do so. How does that justify assuming facts not in existence here?

(04-22-2015 11:30 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  Not being able to prove Romney didn't pay his taxes didn't stop Reid from claiming it repeatedly.

This thread is about the author of the book.

(04-22-2015 11:25 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(04-22-2015 11:22 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(04-22-2015 11:20 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(04-22-2015 11:19 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(04-22-2015 11:17 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  So you are going to dismiss the story based on the source?

You bet your ass. It's a joke source's opinion which is cited and then the other joke source pretends that opinion is fact.

This whole article is a glorified "nuh uh."

There isn't a single useful piece of information in this entire article to anybody with an unbiased eye.

What about the quote from the author. Are you going to dismiss that also?

The National Enquirer broke the Edwards scandal.

I suppose that didn't happen either based on the reputation of the source.

Bless your poor little heart.

Don't hate the source, hate the facts.

Sure. Produce some.

One fact- David Brock is nothing more than an opportunistic whore. He'd switch his "outlook" or opinion on something as quick as I can change my socks if the price was right.

Go look at his past...Total fraud.