From the link "Perhaps emergency room providers don’t know the price of the care they provide, either."
Speaking as the son of an ER doctor, they don't. In hospitals, doctors order tests, review results, diagnose and prescribe treatments to be carried out by nurses or the patient later. They do not bill. In their own offices, they even have to do shenanigans to find out what other doctors charge (can't ask other doctors legally, because then that's colluding).
I think the crux of the point here is, even if you DISTRUST government, what in the world makes you think the system we have now (the combination of insurance companies and providers) is somehow working well for you?? First off, unless you have a gold-plated plan, there is almost NO way anyone even with excellent healthcare from their employer will have anything less than a $1000 deductible (and that is being VERY generous). Which means that you are getting exactly jack shit until you have already spent that much out of pocket. Health insurance is effectively useless up to the point of meeting your deductible, and it's reset every year.
Moreover, this is also a country where you can be charged $30 for an Advil in an emergency room. I looked up the cost at Wal-Mart of a 24 count package of the same. It is $4, or about 16 cents per pill. Which means that the hospital or healthcare provider is charging you nearly 200x more than it's base retail value. Not 5x more, not even 50x more, but TWO HUNDRED times more. That is just a single example. That isn't healthcare, it's robbery.
It's nearly impossible to actually get public records of what a hospital is charging, so a reporter for Vox asked readers to send in their bills. She studied over a 1000 of them, and this is what she found:
None of our international friends here have to deal with any of this, ever. In fact, they, to a person, likely think it is absolute lunacy of the highest order.
Don't leave out double-billing and questionable add-ons to the hospital bills. Unless you have some kind of an education you're going to get bilked by these predators. Period!
I had a ludicrous experience with a hospital about 10 years ago that left a very bad taste in my mouth. Basically, I cut myself on the ankle when I dropped a glass funnel at work and it broke on the lip of the fume hood I was working in. It was a tiny cut (maybe 1/4 inch) but we're supposed to report to medical for any first-aid incident so, against my better judgement, I went to the company nurse figuring she'd put a butterfly bandage on it and that would be that. Of course it became a huge cluster#&%@ instead! The nurse informed me that she isn't allowed to apply a butterfly and I'd have to go to the emergency room instead. Serously??? I had to sit in the waiting room for 4 hours to get 1 stitch. I shit you not! They then showed me the bill that my company had to cover. $750 for 1 stitch!!! A couple of months later I got a letter in my mailbox from the hospital saying that I owed them $750 too! I called them and told them it was already paid but not only didn't they bother to check, they told me that unless I paid them they'd put it on my credit report! I told them to go to Hell. I think it's still on my credit report to this day because I didn't pay them one dime...
Re: what about the women, clerical jobs (and CEOs and executives I might add).
Why do you think healthcare is so expensive in the US, right. We pay more and get less care. We're #10 in top 10 developed countries and we're paying about twice as much.
So what about the jobs? Bernie's plan includes job training and it is expensive but it will actually save money over the system we have right away and even more in the future once it's fully implemented.
Imagine one day having an accident or being sick, going to the hospital and not having to deal with the insurance middle man. You won't have to deal with that person who always comes in half way through your emergency room visit and has to get all your information and present you 50 pieces of paper. That's actually how the system works in other countries like Canada.
I agree what you are describing is what it SHOULD be like. We should have never been in this situation, and only the ENTIRE rest of the civilized world agrees this is the case. The problem is, we aren't. We have an entire political party that will never get on board (the Republicans) and at least half of another one (the Democrats). We are stuck in the same loop on healthcare as we are on guns. It's now a self-fulfilling prophecy and cycle we can't get out of. Everyone knows our positions on both are borderline mass psychosis, but we have no ability to actually do anything about either one of them for a myriad of reasons. The BEST we could hope for is a public option. In hindsight, I am more impressed than ever that Obama, Pelosi and Reid were actually able to pull off what they did in regards to the ACA. It actually made a tangible difference in regards to the most important issue facing the country.
But as anyone can see, it has taken JUST as much of a monumental effort to stave off the attacks to destroy it completely for the last two years. The only thing that stopped it from being repealed was the fact that Donald Trump disparaged John McCain's war record during the campaign, and McCain decided to stick a middle finger in his face to pay him back. That is literally the only reason it wasn't dismantled entirely. If Trump had not made that comment about McCain being captured, we'd be looking at an entirely different situation.
There are conservatives (re:profiteers) in Canada too who want to privatize their medicare system. But they are rare. It is an incredibly unpopular position, like dismantling social security would be over here. Once people get healthcare it won't be easy to roll back but the price of freedom is vigilance right.
Trump has been a shining example of things that shouldn't be possible yet they are happening right.
We shouldn't accept a President who hides his tax returns, says he grabs women by the genitalia, lies about everything, and imprisons kids BUT here we are right. So if Trump can't totally destroy everything in an attempt to get he and his buddies richer, then maybe the good guys can do the same thing and make things better while they are at it too. I mean there's obviously NO qualifications required to hold office in the age of Trump. So screw it, save the planet; make things better.
Piss off conservatives, they are going to complain and cry regardless - it's what they do, it's their thing.
Or, work with the more centrist ones and make changes that will last more than 2-8 years. Perish the thought!
Obamacare was working with centrists. It doesn't matter Conservative politicians are crazy they will attack anything and accept nothing. Bill Clinton was a centrist. With President Bill Clinton, Democrats moved to the Center. In response Republicans just moved farther right to the extreme right. So no, appeasement doesn't work. It didn't work with Hitler and it's not been working with Republicans either, it's made things worse.
Trump was going to accept the last government funding bill but a person attacked him to the farther right, Ann Coulter, and then he changed his mind and shutdown the government and then the whole emergency declaration. Republicans do not go to the center, they go further right. Even right wing people, like John Roberts or Trump(!) get attacked on the right flank. The Republican party is just extreme right basically and to get ahead they go farther right. Remember the Tea party? Same shit - their schtick was "let's go farther right than these mainstream extremist republicans!"
So basically, nothing a democrat says or does in compromise will be accepted anything so screw em'. Do something useful. Half measure compromises won't work.
I didn't like how she handled the issue with her personal server, or her fake 'l was dodging sniper fire in Bosnia' bullshit but mostly I took issue with her being basically 'gifted' a Senate seat to groom her for the presidency because she had a popular presidential husband. Kiss my ass! That's the same reason I won't vote for John Dingell's wife. She didn't earn her seat, it was given to her.
Interestingly (or more likely not interestingly ) I thought about doing a post yesterday about the Bosnia fairy tales in response to someone's comment. It seemed to me to be a good example of how trying to be good can get you into trouble.
Going into the election Clinton had been active in public life and politics for many years. With the level of involvement she had had it was totally inevitable that there were statements and decisions made that could be attacked, whether she was at fault or not. As none of us are perfect it also made it extremely likely that there would have been occasions where she was legitimately at fault - and the Bosnian statements are a good example of that.
The reason it's a good example though is that it stands out from the crowd. My perception at least is that Clinton generally attempted to tell the truth and it was therefore a bit shocking when she clearly didn't do that - and she got a lot of negative publicity as a result of her statements about being under fire in Bosnia. I think that's totally correct - we should expect politicians to tell the truth and criticize them when they don't. However, Trump is not treated in the same way at all. People have been desensitized by his continual lies and many no longer consider it important at all whether anything he says is true or not (because even false statements reflect a 'deeper' truth).
Am I really the odd one out in thinking that it's not only policies that matter - that it should be important in its own right whether Presidents and Supreme Court Justices tell the truth?
I don't disagree that Trump lies and at times does so intentionally, like trying to fool the idiots in his base that he's done anything on the wall, but I disagree about Clinton being a generally honest person. I tend to see Clinton's lies as more malicious usually because there's some level of cover up involved.
But in terms of Clinton's character, what do you consider a lie? Would you consider it a lie if you swore to disclose your donors and then you had secret donations coming in from those who you are presiding over in the State Department? Hilary can take payments to her Foundation from foreign groups she is overseeing policy for, at the exact time she is setting policy for them, and nobody cares, even though there are multiple examples of it from both Clintons. She can hide donors when she promised not to and nobody cares. Dead silence from the media, the left, it's rendered an obscure fact in conservative circles. Her lies about Bosnia or statements about black people are the least of it. It wasn't brought up during the debates. They gave her a low ball vague question about her charity, using none of the easily verifiable concrete examples that have the undeniable appearance of pay for play, and she couldn't even answer that honestly, stuttering and deflecting the question.
The difference seems to be far more in the reaction to dishonesty based on political affiliation rather than any substantial difference in amount or degree. Because the information gatekeepers are almost all on one side, they actively push against their enemies and cover up for those they like, and the consistent pattern of anti-republican lies shows.
That's my biggest problem here, really. Not that Trump lies or that his substantial ones aren't worth criticizing, or that we have a media wanting to investigate his claims, but that this only works one way. Proving him a liar is essentially the entire function of the media, so much so that they aren't willing to tell the truth in their own right let alone try to hold anyone they like to the same standards.
For example, if I believed them at face value i'd believe the Covington hoax, Jussie Smollett being the victim of a hate crime, fake tax sheets that try to show how recent tax cuts hurt middle class folks, that Russia had an investment fund with ties to Trump officials, that the GOP would make rape and domestic violence pre-existing conditions in their changes to health care law, the "hands up don't shoot" lie, calling for peace instead of calling for violence for BLM activists, UVA hoax, Trump told Cohen to lie about Trump Tower Moscow, that Don Jr. had access to Wikileaks files before they were released...all not true! The only consistent pattern in their lies is pro war and anti republican.
Shouldn't we also demand that our sources of information be at least as honest as our politicians and have at least a minimum level of objectivity? That, to me, is a necessary prerequisite for factual political discourse and we could not be further from that current point.
The key point being that the entire 2015 story was planted on the NY Times by Bannon and the author of Clinton Cash, both employees at Breitbart:
Two words: Steve Bannon. In 2012, Bannon and Peter Schweizer, a conservative author, established a tax-exempt nonprofit organization called the Government Accountability Institute. They used funding from the family foundation of hedge funder manager and conservative mega-donor Robert Mercer. Bannon, of course, took over Trump’s presidential campaign in August 2016 and was ousted this summer from a post as a top White House aide. The institute was separate from but closely linked to Breitbart News, where Bannon and Schweizer also worked. Schweizer wrote a book, Clinton Cash, which portrayed Bill and Hillary Clinton’s charitable foundation as a corrupt scheme and cited the Uranium One deal as a primary example.
Schweizer’s biggest achievement was to get some of his claims into the the New York Times. The Times, eager to show it was serious about investigating Hillary Clinton, entered what it called an “exclusive” agreement to base a reporting project on Schweizer’s work. The result was an April 23, 2015, article headlined: “Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation Amid Russian Uranium Deal.” According to the story, Schweizer “provided a preview of material in the book to The Times, which scrutinized his information and built upon it with its own reporting.”
As for Smollett, I don't think a single person has brought him up either in the immediate aftermath of his false claims or afterward. But in the immediate days following the alleged incident, not only was the Chicago PD affirming it was under investigation as a legit attack (are we now arguing we shouldn't believe cops, because god knows that would be a first for the right side of the aisle), but we are also ignoring the fact that he paid two guys to LITERALLY beat him up enough to put him in the hospital to make it seem credible. It would be one thing if he had just said it had happened, but when a person is willing to actually have themselves take a beating to make it look real, most people aren't just going to assume that is what took place. Because who the hell does that??
I looked into this apparent claim about the GOP making rape a pre-existing condition in their health care plan. It seems to emanate for a couple of blogs (if we are going down that rabbit-hole), and yes, that particular claim is rated as mostly false. HOWEVER, what those blogs were talking about was health problems that existed as a DIRECT result of rape (and actual examples of women who had them) that WOULD be considered pre-existing conditions, because the entire point of why the GOP plan was so atrocious was that it was going back to letting pre-existing conditions exist in the first place. So no, the GOP plan didn't specifically carve out specific things certain rape victims could be denied insurance because of, but it didn't need to, because under their plan, it was a distinction without a difference. Anything at all could cause you to be denied coverage, just like before. Even conditions resulting from the aftermath of a rape, along with hundreds if not thousands of others.
I didn't like how she handled the issue with her personal server, or her fake 'l was dodging sniper fire in Bosnia' bullshit but mostly I took issue with her being basically 'gifted' a Senate seat to groom her for the presidency because she had a popular presidential husband. Kiss my ass! That's the same reason I won't vote for John Dingell's wife. She didn't earn her seat, it was given to her.
Interestingly (or more likely not interestingly ) I thought about doing a post yesterday about the Bosnia fairy tales in response to someone's comment. It seemed to me to be a good example of how trying to be good can get you into trouble.
Going into the election Clinton had been active in public life and politics for many years. With the level of involvement she had had it was totally inevitable that there were statements and decisions made that could be attacked, whether she was at fault or not. As none of us are perfect it also made it extremely likely that there would have been occasions where she was legitimately at fault - and the Bosnian statements are a good example of that.
The reason it's a good example though is that it stands out from the crowd. My perception at least is that Clinton generally attempted to tell the truth and it was therefore a bit shocking when she clearly didn't do that - and she got a lot of negative publicity as a result of her statements about being under fire in Bosnia. I think that's totally correct - we should expect politicians to tell the truth and criticize them when they don't. However, Trump is not treated in the same way at all. People have been desensitized by his continual lies and many no longer consider it important at all whether anything he says is true or not (because even false statements reflect a 'deeper' truth).
Am I really the odd one out in thinking that it's not only policies that matter - that it should be important in its own right whether Presidents and Supreme Court Justices tell the truth?
I don't disagree that Trump lies and at times does so intentionally, like trying to fool the idiots in his base that he's done anything on the wall, but I disagree about Clinton being a generally honest person. I tend to see Clinton's lies as more malicious usually because there's some level of cover up involved.
But in terms of Clinton's character, what do you consider a lie? Would you consider it a lie if you swore to disclose your donors and then you had secret donations coming in from those who you are presiding over in the State Department? Hilary can take payments to her Foundation from foreign groups she is overseeing policy for, at the exact time she is setting policy for them, and nobody cares, even though there are multiple examples of it from both Clintons. She can hide donors when she promised not to and nobody cares. Dead silence from the media, the left, it's rendered an obscure fact in conservative circles. Her lies about Bosnia or statements about black people are the least of it. It wasn't brought up during the debates. They gave her a low ball vague question about her charity, using none of the easily verifiable concrete examples that have the undeniable appearance of pay for play, and she couldn't even answer that honestly, stuttering and deflecting the question.
The difference seems to be far more in the reaction to dishonesty based on political affiliation rather than any substantial difference in amount or degree. Because the information gatekeepers are almost all on one side, they actively push against their enemies and cover up for those they like, and the consistent pattern of anti-republican lies shows.
That's my biggest problem here, really. Not that Trump lies or that his substantial ones aren't worth criticizing, or that we have a media wanting to investigate his claims, but that this only works one way. Proving him a liar is essentially the entire function of the media, so much so that they aren't willing to tell the truth in their own right let alone try to hold anyone they like to the same standards.
For example, if I believed them at face value i'd believe the Covington hoax, Jussie Smollett being the victim of a hate crime, fake tax sheets that try to show how recent tax cuts hurt middle class folks, that Russia had an investment fund with ties to Trump officials, that the GOP would make rape and domestic violence pre-existing conditions in their changes to health care law, the "hands up don't shoot" lie, calling for peace instead of calling for violence for BLM activists, UVA hoax, Trump told Cohen to lie about Trump Tower Moscow, that Don Jr. had access to Wikileaks files before they were released...all not true! The only consistent pattern in their lies is pro war and anti republican.
Shouldn't we also demand that our sources of information be at least as honest as our politicians and have at least a minimum level of objectivity? That, to me, is a necessary prerequisite for factual political discourse and we could not be further from that current point.
In relation to Clinton I don't think she's a paragon of virtue. She believes in using power to manipulate people and situations in a way that I think can be problematic - for instance in relation to the way she handled some of the accusations of sexual misconduct against her husband. That does not change my view though that she generally tries to be honest. I watched very carefully the excerpt from the Presidential debate you posted and I don't think she told any lies (quite unlike Trump in that excerpt). Yes, she was being evasive in the sense that she very quickly answered the question asked about the Foundation and then went off at a tangent to tell the stories that suited her, but that's no surprise from any politician.
One of the stories you posted was about the Uranium One dealings. From what I know about that it has been thoroughly investigated and very little of real concern has been found - see this Snopes article for instance. I couldn't access the other link dating from 2008, but it wouldn't surprise me if there was a real problem there - at least in terms of lack of transparency, as that is something Clinton has admitted has been a genuine issue.
I also think that she could have done more to distance herself from the Clinton Foundation while she was in office. I don't believe for a moment that she extorted money for the Foundation, but I do believe that she was willing for the Foundation to accept money from donors that she knew were making the charitable donations with the aim of getting special treatment. I agree that is a major problem and that the aim should be to sharply reduce the extent to which finance drives politics. It's not remotely equivalent to what is happening under the current government of course, but I accept that one contributing factor to Trump getting away with his corrupt practices has been his ability to portray what he's doing as just the same as the Clintons and "what everyone does".
On the wider issue of media coverage, I don't look at any US media as a matter of course (most of the information I see about the US comes via the BBC, though I do fairly regularly search for specific information elsewhere when posting in this thread). That may be part of the reason why we have such different views on this. However, from the information I see I've not noted any tendency to be soft on Clinton or the Democrats. I do agree with you about some aspects of the coverage over Trump though. I have seen a regrettable tendency to turn that into a numbers game - "look how many lies have been told this week". Rather than parsing every statement to see if it can justifiably be called a lie, I would far rather the media concentrated on a couple of major issues at a time, explaining the background to a story and why what Trump had said was a lie.
I also don't see any consistent attempts by mainstream media to promote false stories favorable to Democrats or unfavorable to Republicans. There clearly is a political bias in the selection and presentation of stories (personally I think it's regrettable that the requirement for the media to observe political balance was abolished, but that's another story - though I suspect we might not be so far apart on that point ). That's not the same thing though as telling false stories. I noted in posting about Covington the pressure on media outlets to publish stories too quickly before they have been properly checked, so it wouldn't surprise me if there have been other similar cases in the past. It would surprise me though to find examples of the liberal mainstream media continuing to publish stories that were false. Can you point me to a single example of such a story where a false narrative has continued to be given even a matter of days after the truth was apparent?
The Clinton foundation was not a self dealing foundation. Deposits made to the foundation did not directly benefit the Clintons. It is problematic that donations to the foundation may have occurred close to decisions that benefited the donors. On the other hand Trump's organization was literally a scam and is being investigated by NY as such. It took it's charitable donations and did things like buy statues of Trump and artwork for his clubs. That was not what was happening with the Clinton foundation.
> Using Politifact and Snopes as fact checkers lmao
Since they don't dispute any major parts of the story- the funding or her position at the time- with any real evidence what am I supposed to take out of it other than everything i've already said? Don't get me wrong, they try to dispute the funding, but they both meet in the middle and admit it looks corrupt. This is their ruling:
"And while the connections between the Clinton Foundation and the Russian deal may appear fishy, there is no proof of any quid pro quo."
Of course it is appears fishy, because it has the appearance of corruption. All they are saying is that you can't prove it. Which is true, you can't. But the appearance is great enough that it really doesn't matter.
But this is pretty much how Politifact operates. Find something that looks bad for the democrats, mix real truth in with some bull they found on facebook, tie it all together and call it "mostly false" so low info voters won't do their research.
I looked into this apparant claim about the GOP making rape a pre existing condition. It seems to emanate from a couple of blogs
This came right from CNN and could be found with the basic google searches.
The Clinton foundation was not a self dealing foundation. Deposits made to the foundation did not directly benefit the Clintons. It is problematic that donations to the foundation may have occurred close to decisions that benefited the donors. On the other hand Trump's organization was literally a scam and is being investigated by NY as such. It took it's charitable donations and did things like buy statues of Trump and artwork for his clubs. That was not what was happening with the Clinton foundation.
Right because donors like Saudi Arabia care so much about global human rights and helping the needy.
Anyone with two brain cells to rub together knows an influence buying scheme when they see it.
Besides, we know that when they are getting Foundation money assuming they arent dipping into that, they are also getting personal money on the side by direct donations or speaking engagements.
Actually we should break down their critique in a little more depth. It's simple though so no need for a text wall:
The primary objections they have are:
- Other heads of departments had to approve, and
- some of the funding doesn't line up.
To the first one I say it's pretty obvious that this isn't an argument for it not being corruption. They give her the money, they expect her to exert pressure or convince the others to go through with the deal. Clinton has far more influence than the average DC flunkie so it isn't hard to imagine her having such influence.
My main problem with the second critique is that they are relying on a claim they admit is unverified when it comes to the bulk of the money. I don't accept unverified claims, and certainly not as "fact checks".
Ah yes. Innocent until proven guilty apparently only matters in the realm of Supreme Court justice nominees e - but when it's the unverified appearance of fishyness of a political rivals on the other hand...
Also - I mentioned Smollett a few pages ago. As a joke. It's the only reference I've seen.
Actually we should break down their critique in a little more depth. It's simple though so no need for a text wall:
The primary objections they have are:
- Other heads of departments had to approve, and
- some of the funding doesn't line up.
To the first one I say it's pretty obvious that this isn't an argument for it not being corruption. They give her the money, they expect her to exert pressure or convince the others to go through with the deal. Clinton has far more influence than the average DC flunkie so it isn't hard to imagine her having such influence.
As I said in my previous post I agree that Hillary Clinton accepted donations to the Foundation that she knew were prompted by people wanting to buy influence and that is clearly undesirable. To help reduce this sort of thing, I think there should be clear ethical requirements on members of the government. At present there are such requirements on employees and on members of congress, but not on the President or members of the government (which seems incredible to me ). A summary of the position is given here.
My main problem with the second critique is that they are relying on a claim they admit is unverified when it comes to the bulk of the money. I don't accept unverified claims, and certainly not as "fact checks".
The reason for the conclusions by Politifact and Snopes related to the timing of donations, not the ownership of Uranium one that Politifact said they were unable to independently verify. The main donations cited in the original claim were amounts of $31m and $100m by Giustra. The first donation was made in 2006 and the second in 2007 - well before the US government decisions in 2010/11 where it was claimed Hillary Clinton had used undue influence.
I should say though that my statements about Hillary are specific to her and do not cover Bill Clinton. While I don't think there's any evidence that Hillary used her influence inappropriately in this case, I think Bill Clinton's behavior is far more concerning. He made public statements and held meetings to support Giustra getting uranium investment rights in Kazakhstan - and that seems to me to clearly be the reason for the $131m, rather than anything done by Hillary years later. The concerns over mixing of personal and Foundation transactions also relate to Bill and while I think Hillary is generally honest, Bill could be much more economical with the truth.
On a more general level it seems to me you're not fairly viewing the way the fact checking sites operate. I think it's not surprising that most of the claims made against Hillary have been rated as false as there have been an awful lot of claims entirely made up out of thin air. I have though seen a number where claims have been substantiated and I don't personally see any grounds for believing that these sites have a vested interest in favoring one political party over another.
In relation to this particular claim, you've yourself noted the Politifact conclusion that "while the connections between the Clinton Foundation and the Russian deal may appear fishy, there is no proof of any quid pro quo." Given the information they've referenced I agree that this seems to be a biased conclusion, but the bias is clearly against Hillary, rather than in her favor . This reference seems to me to be derived from the connections between Bill Clinton, the Clinton Foundation and the donations - and, as noted above, I agree those are troubling. However, the claim being judged was not about Bill, but specifically about Hillary's actions. If they wanted to put that sort of reference in they should have broadened the scope of the claim being judged to include the historic links between Uranium One and the Clinton Foundation.
As I said in my previous post I agree that Hillary Clinton accepted donations to the Foundation that she knew were prompted by people wanting to buy influence and that is clearly undesirable. To help reduce this sort of thing, I think there should be clear ethical requirements on members of the government.
Well then, what are we really disagreeing on? That's basically my whole point.
The reason for the conclusions by Politifact and Snopes related to the timing of donations, not the ownership of Uranium one that Politifact said they were unable to independently verify. The main donations cited in the original claim were amounts of $31m and $100m by Giustra. The first donation was made in 2006 and the second in 2007 - well before the US government decisions in 2010/11 where it was claimed Hillary Clinton had used undue influence.
Which is no argument at all for no corrupt behavior. You buy influence knowing the general direction of your company and what you will need, and you cash in when you need it in the near future. Doesn't take much planning or foresight or intelligence, really. That's what an influence buying operation is there to do, buy influence when you need it.
Also, to be clear, this is referring to part of the donations. In the Politifact article it states that there was also 1.3 and 5.6 million donated during and after the review process, so there were pre-bribes, bribes during the process and bribes after.
On a more general level it seems to me you're not fairly viewing the way the fact checking sites operate.
I think you give far too much credit to them given their track record and awful standards of "fact checking", but we can agree to disagree.
All the basic facts of this story are true. There were millions of dollars transferred during the process privately to Clinton who hid the donations and was in a position to affect favorable policy, and favorable policy happened. They rate it "mostly false" because of a few invented internet stories and an argument with more holes than swiss cheese in defense of Clinton. I can call myself a fact checker and carry water too.
All the basic facts of this story are true. There were millions of dollars transferred during the process privately to Clinton who hid the donations and was in a position to affect favorable policy, and favorable policy happened. They rate it "mostly false" because of a few invented internet stories and an argument with more holes than swiss cheese in defense of Clinton. I can call myself a fact checker and carry water too.
I agree we may not be so far apart on this issue in terms of the general need to keep finance out of politics. You suggest that there's a problem where historic donations are intended to influence behavior and I would agree with that - of course that problem then applies to the vast majority of politicians in the US (as far as I'm aware there are very few that refuse to accept donations). There are plenty of major areas of policy (e.g. gun control, climate change and banking regulations) where government policy and laws give the appearance of being linked to financial contributions.
In relation though to whether donations have actually resulted in politicians actively intervening on an issue all you can do is look at the evidence. The reports I've seen suggest that Hillary (unlike Bill) did not have an active role in Uranium One dealings. The basis of the Politifact ruling was not just that she had no power to make the decision about the Russian takeover (as you say she could in theory have exercised influence anyway), nor that the donations were nearly all given years earlier, but that she was not involved at all ("Clinton has said that she was not personally involved and, in a New York Times article, then-Assistant Secretary of State Jose Fernandez, who represented the State Department on the panel, said Clinton "never intervened" in CFIUS matters."). Again unlike Bill, there have been no reports of her arranging or attending private meetings or making public statements on this matter - and given the amount of leaked emails and the amount of time spent investigating this, I am very skeptical of the idea that she could have had any significant involvement without that becoming publicly known by now. If you're interested here's a bit more detail about why I think that - I've put it in a spoiler just to reduce the wall of text.
There has been a lot of coverage in the media about this over the years and a lot of that has been hostile. For instance there was a major attack in the New York Times in 2015 - and that's part of the pattern that I've observed that, far from going easy on Hillary, the left-leaning media have been pretty harsh on her over the years. That article prompted further investigations without finding anything of substance. However, the same pattern has kept repeating. For instance in November 2017 Jeff Carlson published this article. Despite the amount of investigations that had already taken place he suggested strongly that further investigation would uncover some huge scandal ("I thought had a grasp of the scandal’s magnitude. I was wrong. This is bigger. Much bigger."). However, it has not. That has not prevented more recent suggestions that there is still something there to find - not long ago I saw the idea that there must be incriminating evidence of Hillary's involvement in FBI papers about the investigation into Uranium One that have been put into their online vault. As I said above I think it stretches credibility too far to assert that Hillary had some significant involvement in this case without details already having been made public. If you add in the factor that Trump has the ability to declassify information - and would love to make anything critical to Hillary public - I think the chances that there is anything major to find are essentially zero.
This is the same pattern seen over the coverage of the Clinton emails. For many years, despite detailed investigations, claims of major wrongdoing are made - and taken up by the mainstream media. I think the reason those investigations (in both cases) have found nothing more significant than breaches of protocol and minor infringements (again I'm referring specifically to Hillary and not Bill) is obvious - there's nothing to find. The alternative - that hundreds of people are involved in some deep-state conspiracy to protect the Clintons - has plenty of supporters, but I prefer to take a rational approach to the evidence.
Therefore, while I agree that it would be far preferable if ethical rules prohibited anything that even gave the appearance of a conflict of interest, on the particular issue being investigated I can't see any evidence that could have justified the fact checking sites supporting the allegations against Hillary.
Is Hillary Clinton President of some shadow government that I unaware of?? It's nearly March of 2019. This insistence on the right is that she not only not be President (mission accomplished) but also that she be treated as if she is. How long is this coupon good for?? Does it ever expire?? We have a whole new crop of candidates ready to be tarred and feathered by right-wing media, yet Trump rallies are still chanting "lock her up" and she is still the #1 story on FOX News any night Trump has a bad day. At this point, this is getting to be like hearing "Hotel California" or "Freebird" on classic rock stations. She didn't attain the Presidency, so she is not going to continue to be subject to the same scrutiny as the person who did. The check that made sure she didn't get in office has already been cashed, yet there seems to be a thought that if you just keep taking the check to other banks, it will keep producing a monied payout. When has this ever been the dynamic before?? Show me the instances where John Kerry, John McCain and Mitt Romney were still the absolute focal point and foil for the opposite party well over two years after they lost. You'll see Haley's Comet again before you come up with an example.
That's an understandable point of view @jjstraka34 and as I've posted I don't think Hillary Clinton has done anything worthy of being pursued in this way. However, if she had done, I don't think the fact that she should no longer be such a focal figure would justify not pursuing a case. Thinking ahead a bit, I see no reason why Trump should not be charged with all the crimes he's committed after he's left office. In the past there's been a tendency to take the line - go quietly and you'll get an amnesty. I think Trump has already gone way past the point where that would be a reasonable alternative ...
And I guess if the corruption is completely in the open and flaunted and was warned out repeatedly before a person gets elected to the highest position in government we all can just collectively shrug when it happens.
For example, do you not think Abe nominating Trump for a Nobel Peace Prize (and it being mentioned publicly) isn’t influence peddling I have a tax break to sell you.
That's an understandable point of view @jjstraka34 and as I've posted I don't think Hillary Clinton has done anything worthy of being pursued in this way. However, if she had done, I don't think the fact that she should no longer be such a focal figure would justify not pursuing a case. Thinking ahead a bit, I see no reason why Trump should not be charged with all the crimes he's committed after he's left office. In the past there's been a tendency to take the line - go quietly and you'll get an amnesty. I think Trump has already gone way past the point where that would be a reasonable alternative ...
If Hillary had won and had even 1/100th of the scandals Trump had in his first two years, Tim Kaine would be President right now.
Some people here brought it up, not gonna name names cause it doesn't matter at all, but the story pre-hoax was on ABC and others.
Wait wait... let me mske sure I understand you:
1) Someone goes to great lengths to create an elaborate deception that seems like a news-worthy story
2) News organizations report on the story
3) The guy's deception is uncovered
4) ...Now you want to indict the victims of that deception as somehow being party to it?
I know you love tbe conspiracy theories but trying to politicize this Smollett thing is a bit far even for you...
I try not to respond to you frankly because of your consistently condescending attitude, but...
For all the defense of the institution of journalism it's amazing how basic skepticism or fact checking is simply too much to ask from them nowadays. Nothing about the story made sense- why random dudes carry with them rope and bleach in the middle of one of the most liberal cities in the country looking to commit a racist hate crime, why anyone would scream "this is maga country" in said very blue district, how that is a realistic phrase when nobody speaks that way...
Regardless, it's merely a drop in the bucket in a much larger issue of a lack of skepticism for anything that fits their biases. That you singled this out among a sea of other ones doesn't mean much to the larger point.
The basis of the Politifact ruling was not just that she had no power to make the decision about the Russian takeover (as you say she could in theory have exercised influence anyway), nor that the donations were nearly all given years earlier, but that she was not involved at all ("Clinton has said that she was not personally involved and, in a New York Times article, then-Assistant Secretary of State Jose Fernandez, who represented the State Department on the panel, said Clinton "never intervened" in CFIUS matters.").
So, let me get this straight, Politifact is basing their claim that she wasn't involved on the word of her and her assistant? Forgive me if I don't take it at face value.
Nice "fact checking", by the way, uncritically reporting her own statements and the statements of her direct underling as complete fact. Totally neutral and objective.
The Smollett case certainly got some play in the beginning, but it was nothing compared to how much it was covered when the scam was revealed. How do I know this?? Because his arraignment had wall to wall coverage on every network all afternoon. Wanna guess what other news broke that day?? An honest to god assassination plot about to be carried out by a member of the Coast Guard against multiple Democratic politicians. Guess which story dominated cable news that day?? Hint: it wasn't the one where a member of the armed services was planning to KILL prominent national Democrats with a massive arsenal of weaponry. It was the one where a guy paid people to beat him up to increase his TV show salary.
The Smollett case certainly got some play in the beginning, but it was nothing compared to how much it was covered when the scam was revealed. How do I know this?? Because his arraignment had wall to wall coverage on every network all afternoon. Wanna guess what other news broke that day?? An honest to god assassination plot about to be carried out by a member of the Coast Guard against multiple Democratic politicians. Guess which story dominated cable news that day?? Hint: it wasn't the one where a member of the armed services was planning to KILL prominent national Democrats with a massive arsenal of weaponry. It was the one where a guy paid people to beat him up to increase his TV show salary.
Yeah, I'm sure he and his 'massive' arsenal could really have brought the government to it's knees! Give me a break. How much of that arsenal could he possibly have carried with him? Is he Neo and can whip machine pistol after machine pistol out of his cloak? He could have accomplished more with one sniper rifle and a clear line of sight to any 'one' of those targets, and one chance is all he would have gotten. Sorry, that dipshit got about as much air time as he deserved.
For all the defense of the institution of journalism it's amazing how basic skepticism or fact checking is simply too much to ask from them nowadays. Nothing about the story made sense- why random dudes carry with them rope and bleach in the middle of one of the most liberal cities in the country looking to commit a racist hate crime, why anyone would scream "this is maga country" in said very blue district, how that is a realistic phrase when nobody speaks that way...
The credibility of an argument like this is undercut when one decries journalism for not knowing Jussie Smollett faked his attack (They were reporting upon it, not investigating it. There is a difference) and simultaneously holding up conspiracy theories like Uranium One even though it was previously admitted "nothing has been proven".
The credibility of an argument is based on the evidence for the argument. I gave ten examples. You have an issue with one. I can grant you that, if you wish, and still have 90% of the evidence for the argument unchallenged. Nitpicked, perhaps, undercut, hardly. Considering your stance on Russia and Trump, something i've discussed with you several times, I find this "no conviction, can't talk about it" shift in attitude to be more than a little hollow.
Calling something a conspiracy theory doesn't make it so. Indeed, throwing labels around and not addressing the actual evidence for the claim is the exact opposite of convincing.
Do you believe politicians and their subordinates at face value? Is credulous acceptance of the statements of the accused how we operate?
To put it another way, would you take Trump and Sessions at their word that Trump had no collusion with Russia? Trump and Jared Kushner? Trump and anyone?
Did you know Uranium 1 is a Canadian company?
Did you know that a Canadian panel also had to approve the sale?
Did you know that freaking Utah, a republican stronghold, also had approve the sale?
Did you know it was passed by a panel of nine agencies, only one headed by Clinton, who recused herself from sitting because of a potential conflict of interest and not one agency objected, nor did Obama who had Veto power?
Yet the Clintons controlled everything because of $145 Million donation because Briebart news said so. Big scary Boogiewoman that Clinton is. She's the deep state puppet master that expands internationally into other countries to make sure people who donate to her charity get their way.
The idea that because other agencies also had to approve it that foreign businesses simply wouldn't possibly ever try to still corrupt the process by appealing to amenable politicians at high levels by funding their influence buying schemes is laughable.
She recused herself, based on what source? I can't find any evidence of it anywhere except for her and her lackey's word, alone.
You yourself said Trump getting nominated for the Nobel Prize was influence peddling. How you don't see 7 million during a deal and lots more shortly before as influence buying, is beyond me.
The credibility of an argument is based on the evidence for the argument. I gave ten examples. You have an issue with one. I can grant you that, if you wish, and still have 90% of the evidence for the argument unchallenged. Nitpicked, perhaps, undercut, hardly. Considering your stance on Russia and Trump, something i've discussed with you several times, I find this "no conviction, can't talk about it" shift in attitude to be more than a little hollow.
I'm not responsible for categorically refuting every point you make. I dont have the time of day. Also, I dont see a particularly large amount of value in it (and I did pick the one most discussed). Dont blame me because you started and maintained an argument centered mostly around Uranium One. You've chosen to die on that hill, not me.
Calling something a conspiracy theory doesn't make it so. Indeed, throwing labels around and not addressing the actual evidence for the claim is the exact opposite of convincing.
You yourself have said there's nothing proven about the meat of the assertion. In addition, your primary argument against it seems to be (and I paraphrase) "Lmao - who uses fact checking sources".
Do you believe politicians and their subordinates at face value? Is credulous acceptance of the statements of the accused how we operate?
Of course not. Interestingly - you'll find exactly no where in this thread that I've made a concrete stand on the validity of Uranium One. My issue isnt with the idea Clinton may have been corrupt (She probably was to some extent) - my point is with the biased argumentation that you'll crusade against any mistake in the media over getting something wrong, and then parrot Uranium One like it's not a right-wing hit job full of half-truths and a total lack of evidence (again - as you yourself have said).
Also, not for nothing, but I have trouble taking all of this seriously since Trump's Administration is looking to be maybe the most corrupt since Reagan.
To put it another way, would you take Trump and Sessions at their word that Trump had no collusion with Russia? Trump and Jared Kushner? Trump and anyone?
No - but then again these arent remotely equivalent situations. Is there an active investigation into collusion over Russia? Yes. Is there an active investigation into Uranium One? (Dont think so, but it wouldnt surprise me if Trump ordered one).
I'm not responsible for categorically refuting every point you make. I dont have the time of day. Also, I dont see a particularly large amount of value in it (and I did pick the one most discussed). Dont blame me because you started and maintained an argument centered mostly around Uranium One. You've chosen to die on that hill, not me.
lol was referring to Smollett and the media not Clinton. If the best pro media argument is "it's not their job to get it right" I think that says all it needs to say about their lack of credibility.
No - but then again these arent remotely equivalent situations. Is there an active investigation into collusion over Russia? Yes. Is there an active investigation into Uranium One? (Dont think so, but it wouldnt surprise me if Trump ordered one).
Yes, there is actually. And much like the Mueller case so far it's delivered indictments but none that related to the actual deal.
And I don't expect there to be. They'd have to find some written communication or other agreement to a quid pro quo. Ain't gonna happen.
I will say this however- this sort of thing should still be illegal whether or not you can actually find concrete proof of quid pro quo. The mere appearance of corruption is detrimental to society and the courts have an interest in preventing it, I agree entirely with Justice Stevens on this and is why I really hate the Citizens United decision because it based on this same idea that only quid pro quo matters and not overwhelming majority opinion about what corruption is and looks like.
it's with the biased argumentation that you'll crusade against any mistake in the media over getting something wrong, and then parrot Uranium One like it's not a right-wing hit job full of half-truths and a total lack of evidence.
Total lack of evidence is just bull. The payments are there, at the time of the deal, and the favorable policy to show for it. The appearance of corruption, something the law sees problematic in and of itself, is plain as day and only the most partisan of us all would say otherwise.
So, the meat of the assertion, as you say, is all there. All that is not is the death blow. I'd call that pretty well evidenced, just not enough to confirm an absolute fact. Just short of the mark as it were.
It's why I simply laugh when terms like "conspiracy theory" and "total lack of evidence" are bandied about. In any neutral context nobody would use those terms to describe such a pretty well documented set of events.
Comments
Speaking as the son of an ER doctor, they don't. In hospitals, doctors order tests, review results, diagnose and prescribe treatments to be carried out by nurses or the patient later. They do not bill. In their own offices, they even have to do shenanigans to find out what other doctors charge (can't ask other doctors legally, because then that's colluding).
Don't leave out double-billing and questionable add-ons to the hospital bills. Unless you have some kind of an education you're going to get bilked by these predators. Period!
I had a ludicrous experience with a hospital about 10 years ago that left a very bad taste in my mouth. Basically, I cut myself on the ankle when I dropped a glass funnel at work and it broke on the lip of the fume hood I was working in. It was a tiny cut (maybe 1/4 inch) but we're supposed to report to medical for any first-aid incident so, against my better judgement, I went to the company nurse figuring she'd put a butterfly bandage on it and that would be that. Of course it became a huge cluster#&%@ instead! The nurse informed me that she isn't allowed to apply a butterfly and I'd have to go to the emergency room instead. Serously??? I had to sit in the waiting room for 4 hours to get 1 stitch. I shit you not! They then showed me the bill that my company had to cover. $750 for 1 stitch!!! A couple of months later I got a letter in my mailbox from the hospital saying that I owed them $750 too! I called them and told them it was already paid but not only didn't they bother to check, they told me that unless I paid them they'd put it on my credit report! I told them to go to Hell. I think it's still on my credit report to this day because I didn't pay them one dime...
Obamacare was working with centrists. It doesn't matter Conservative politicians are crazy they will attack anything and accept nothing. Bill Clinton was a centrist. With President Bill Clinton, Democrats moved to the Center. In response Republicans just moved farther right to the extreme right. So no, appeasement doesn't work. It didn't work with Hitler and it's not been working with Republicans either, it's made things worse.
Trump was going to accept the last government funding bill but a person attacked him to the farther right, Ann Coulter, and then he changed his mind and shutdown the government and then the whole emergency declaration. Republicans do not go to the center, they go further right. Even right wing people, like John Roberts or Trump(!) get attacked on the right flank. The Republican party is just extreme right basically and to get ahead they go farther right. Remember the Tea party? Same shit - their schtick was "let's go farther right than these mainstream extremist republicans!"
So basically, nothing a democrat says or does in compromise will be accepted anything so screw em'. Do something useful. Half measure compromises won't work.
I don't disagree that Trump lies and at times does so intentionally, like trying to fool the idiots in his base that he's done anything on the wall, but I disagree about Clinton being a generally honest person. I tend to see Clinton's lies as more malicious usually because there's some level of cover up involved.
But in terms of Clinton's character, what do you consider a lie? Would you consider it a lie if you swore to disclose your donors and then you had secret donations coming in from those who you are presiding over in the State Department? Hilary can take payments to her Foundation from foreign groups she is overseeing policy for, at the exact time she is setting policy for them, and nobody cares, even though there are multiple examples of it from both Clintons. She can hide donors when she promised not to and nobody cares. Dead silence from the media, the left, it's rendered an obscure fact in conservative circles. Her lies about Bosnia or statements about black people are the least of it. It wasn't brought up during the debates. They gave her a low ball vague question about her charity, using none of the easily verifiable concrete examples that have the undeniable appearance of pay for play, and she couldn't even answer that honestly, stuttering and deflecting the question.
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-foundation-as-russians-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/31/us/politics/31donor.html?module=inline
The difference seems to be far more in the reaction to dishonesty based on political affiliation rather than any substantial difference in amount or degree. Because the information gatekeepers are almost all on one side, they actively push against their enemies and cover up for those they like, and the consistent pattern of anti-republican lies shows.
That's my biggest problem here, really. Not that Trump lies or that his substantial ones aren't worth criticizing, or that we have a media wanting to investigate his claims, but that this only works one way. Proving him a liar is essentially the entire function of the media, so much so that they aren't willing to tell the truth in their own right let alone try to hold anyone they like to the same standards.
For example, if I believed them at face value i'd believe the Covington hoax, Jussie Smollett being the victim of a hate crime, fake tax sheets that try to show how recent tax cuts hurt middle class folks, that Russia had an investment fund with ties to Trump officials, that the GOP would make rape and domestic violence pre-existing conditions in their changes to health care law, the "hands up don't shoot" lie, calling for peace instead of calling for violence for BLM activists, UVA hoax, Trump told Cohen to lie about Trump Tower Moscow, that Don Jr. had access to Wikileaks files before they were released...all not true! The only consistent pattern in their lies is pro war and anti republican.
Shouldn't we also demand that our sources of information be at least as honest as our politicians and have at least a minimum level of objectivity? That, to me, is a necessary prerequisite for factual political discourse and we could not be further from that current point.
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/hillary-clinton-uranium-russia-deal/
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2017/10/the-clinton-uranium-scandal-is-right-wing-nonsense-heres-everything-you-need-to-know/
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/14/us/politics/uranium-one-hillary-clinton.html
The key point being that the entire 2015 story was planted on the NY Times by Bannon and the author of Clinton Cash, both employees at Breitbart:
Two words: Steve Bannon. In 2012, Bannon and Peter Schweizer, a conservative author, established a tax-exempt nonprofit organization called the Government Accountability Institute. They used funding from the family foundation of hedge funder manager and conservative mega-donor Robert Mercer. Bannon, of course, took over Trump’s presidential campaign in August 2016 and was ousted this summer from a post as a top White House aide. The institute was separate from but closely linked to Breitbart News, where Bannon and Schweizer also worked. Schweizer wrote a book, Clinton Cash, which portrayed Bill and Hillary Clinton’s charitable foundation as a corrupt scheme and cited the Uranium One deal as a primary example.
Schweizer’s biggest achievement was to get some of his claims into the the New York Times. The Times, eager to show it was serious about investigating Hillary Clinton, entered what it called an “exclusive” agreement to base a reporting project on Schweizer’s work. The result was an April 23, 2015, article headlined: “Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation Amid Russian Uranium Deal.” According to the story, Schweizer “provided a preview of material in the book to The Times, which scrutinized his information and built upon it with its own reporting.”
As for Smollett, I don't think a single person has brought him up either in the immediate aftermath of his false claims or afterward. But in the immediate days following the alleged incident, not only was the Chicago PD affirming it was under investigation as a legit attack (are we now arguing we shouldn't believe cops, because god knows that would be a first for the right side of the aisle), but we are also ignoring the fact that he paid two guys to LITERALLY beat him up enough to put him in the hospital to make it seem credible. It would be one thing if he had just said it had happened, but when a person is willing to actually have themselves take a beating to make it look real, most people aren't just going to assume that is what took place. Because who the hell does that??
I looked into this apparent claim about the GOP making rape a pre-existing condition in their health care plan. It seems to emanate for a couple of blogs (if we are going down that rabbit-hole), and yes, that particular claim is rated as mostly false. HOWEVER, what those blogs were talking about was health problems that existed as a DIRECT result of rape (and actual examples of women who had them) that WOULD be considered pre-existing conditions, because the entire point of why the GOP plan was so atrocious was that it was going back to letting pre-existing conditions exist in the first place. So no, the GOP plan didn't specifically carve out specific things certain rape victims could be denied insurance because of, but it didn't need to, because under their plan, it was a distinction without a difference. Anything at all could cause you to be denied coverage, just like before. Even conditions resulting from the aftermath of a rape, along with hundreds if not thousands of others.
In relation to Clinton I don't think she's a paragon of virtue. She believes in using power to manipulate people and situations in a way that I think can be problematic - for instance in relation to the way she handled some of the accusations of sexual misconduct against her husband. That does not change my view though that she generally tries to be honest. I watched very carefully the excerpt from the Presidential debate you posted and I don't think she told any lies (quite unlike Trump in that excerpt). Yes, she was being evasive in the sense that she very quickly answered the question asked about the Foundation and then went off at a tangent to tell the stories that suited her, but that's no surprise from any politician.
One of the stories you posted was about the Uranium One dealings. From what I know about that it has been thoroughly investigated and very little of real concern has been found - see this Snopes article for instance. I couldn't access the other link dating from 2008, but it wouldn't surprise me if there was a real problem there - at least in terms of lack of transparency, as that is something Clinton has admitted has been a genuine issue.
I also think that she could have done more to distance herself from the Clinton Foundation while she was in office. I don't believe for a moment that she extorted money for the Foundation, but I do believe that she was willing for the Foundation to accept money from donors that she knew were making the charitable donations with the aim of getting special treatment. I agree that is a major problem and that the aim should be to sharply reduce the extent to which finance drives politics. It's not remotely equivalent to what is happening under the current government of course, but I accept that one contributing factor to Trump getting away with his corrupt practices has been his ability to portray what he's doing as just the same as the Clintons and "what everyone does".
On the wider issue of media coverage, I don't look at any US media as a matter of course (most of the information I see about the US comes via the BBC, though I do fairly regularly search for specific information elsewhere when posting in this thread). That may be part of the reason why we have such different views on this. However, from the information I see I've not noted any tendency to be soft on Clinton or the Democrats. I do agree with you about some aspects of the coverage over Trump though. I have seen a regrettable tendency to turn that into a numbers game - "look how many lies have been told this week". Rather than parsing every statement to see if it can justifiably be called a lie, I would far rather the media concentrated on a couple of major issues at a time, explaining the background to a story and why what Trump had said was a lie.
I also don't see any consistent attempts by mainstream media to promote false stories favorable to Democrats or unfavorable to Republicans. There clearly is a political bias in the selection and presentation of stories (personally I think it's regrettable that the requirement for the media to observe political balance was abolished, but that's another story - though I suspect we might not be so far apart on that point
Amazing video about French Guiana.
Since they don't dispute any major parts of the story- the funding or her position at the time- with any real evidence what am I supposed to take out of it other than everything i've already said? Don't get me wrong, they try to dispute the funding, but they both meet in the middle and admit it looks corrupt. This is their ruling:
"And while the connections between the Clinton Foundation and the Russian deal may appear fishy, there is no proof of any quid pro quo."
Of course it is appears fishy, because it has the appearance of corruption. All they are saying is that you can't prove it. Which is true, you can't. But the appearance is great enough that it really doesn't matter.
But this is pretty much how Politifact operates. Find something that looks bad for the democrats, mix real truth in with some bull they found on facebook, tie it all together and call it "mostly false" so low info voters won't do their research.
This came right from CNN and could be found with the basic google searches.
https://www.cnn.com/2017/05/04/health/pre-existing-condition-rape-domestic-violence-insurance/index.html
Some people here brought it up, not gonna name names cause it doesn't matter at all, but the story pre-hoax was on ABC and others.
Right because donors like Saudi Arabia care so much about global human rights and helping the needy.
Anyone with two brain cells to rub together knows an influence buying scheme when they see it.
Besides, we know that when they are getting Foundation money assuming they arent dipping into that, they are also getting personal money on the side by direct donations or speaking engagements.
https://www.npr.org/2016/10/27/499601267/bill-clinton-inc-wikileaks-shows-links-between-foundation-personal-cash
The primary objections they have are:
- Other heads of departments had to approve, and
- some of the funding doesn't line up.
To the first one I say it's pretty obvious that this isn't an argument for it not being corruption. They give her the money, they expect her to exert pressure or convince the others to go through with the deal. Clinton has far more influence than the average DC flunkie so it isn't hard to imagine her having such influence.
My main problem with the second critique is that they are relying on a claim they admit is unverified when it comes to the bulk of the money. I don't accept unverified claims, and certainly not as "fact checks".
Also - I mentioned Smollett a few pages ago. As a joke. It's the only reference I've seen.
The reason for the conclusions by Politifact and Snopes related to the timing of donations, not the ownership of Uranium one that Politifact said they were unable to independently verify. The main donations cited in the original claim were amounts of $31m and $100m by Giustra. The first donation was made in 2006 and the second in 2007 - well before the US government decisions in 2010/11 where it was claimed Hillary Clinton had used undue influence.
I should say though that my statements about Hillary are specific to her and do not cover Bill Clinton. While I don't think there's any evidence that Hillary used her influence inappropriately in this case, I think Bill Clinton's behavior is far more concerning. He made public statements and held meetings to support Giustra getting uranium investment rights in Kazakhstan - and that seems to me to clearly be the reason for the $131m, rather than anything done by Hillary years later. The concerns over mixing of personal and Foundation transactions also relate to Bill and while I think Hillary is generally honest, Bill could be much more economical with the truth.
On a more general level it seems to me you're not fairly viewing the way the fact checking sites operate. I think it's not surprising that most of the claims made against Hillary have been rated as false as there have been an awful lot of claims entirely made up out of thin air. I have though seen a number where claims have been substantiated and I don't personally see any grounds for believing that these sites have a vested interest in favoring one political party over another.
In relation to this particular claim, you've yourself noted the Politifact conclusion that "while the connections between the Clinton Foundation and the Russian deal may appear fishy, there is no proof of any quid pro quo." Given the information they've referenced I agree that this seems to be a biased conclusion, but the bias is clearly against Hillary, rather than in her favor
Well then, what are we really disagreeing on? That's basically my whole point.
Which is no argument at all for no corrupt behavior. You buy influence knowing the general direction of your company and what you will need, and you cash in when you need it in the near future. Doesn't take much planning or foresight or intelligence, really. That's what an influence buying operation is there to do, buy influence when you need it.
Also, to be clear, this is referring to part of the donations. In the Politifact article it states that there was also 1.3 and 5.6 million donated during and after the review process, so there were pre-bribes, bribes during the process and bribes after.
I think you give far too much credit to them given their track record and awful standards of "fact checking", but we can agree to disagree.
All the basic facts of this story are true. There were millions of dollars transferred during the process privately to Clinton who hid the donations and was in a position to affect favorable policy, and favorable policy happened. They rate it "mostly false" because of a few invented internet stories and an argument with more holes than swiss cheese in defense of Clinton. I can call myself a fact checker and carry water too.
I agree we may not be so far apart on this issue in terms of the general need to keep finance out of politics. You suggest that there's a problem where historic donations are intended to influence behavior and I would agree with that - of course that problem then applies to the vast majority of politicians in the US (as far as I'm aware there are very few that refuse to accept donations). There are plenty of major areas of policy (e.g. gun control, climate change and banking regulations) where government policy and laws give the appearance of being linked to financial contributions.
In relation though to whether donations have actually resulted in politicians actively intervening on an issue all you can do is look at the evidence. The reports I've seen suggest that Hillary (unlike Bill) did not have an active role in Uranium One dealings. The basis of the Politifact ruling was not just that she had no power to make the decision about the Russian takeover (as you say she could in theory have exercised influence anyway), nor that the donations were nearly all given years earlier, but that she was not involved at all ("Clinton has said that she was not personally involved and, in a New York Times article, then-Assistant Secretary of State Jose Fernandez, who represented the State Department on the panel, said Clinton "never intervened" in CFIUS matters."). Again unlike Bill, there have been no reports of her arranging or attending private meetings or making public statements on this matter - and given the amount of leaked emails and the amount of time spent investigating this, I am very skeptical of the idea that she could have had any significant involvement without that becoming publicly known by now. If you're interested here's a bit more detail about why I think that - I've put it in a spoiler just to reduce the wall of text.
This is the same pattern seen over the coverage of the Clinton emails. For many years, despite detailed investigations, claims of major wrongdoing are made - and taken up by the mainstream media. I think the reason those investigations (in both cases) have found nothing more significant than breaches of protocol and minor infringements (again I'm referring specifically to Hillary and not Bill) is obvious - there's nothing to find. The alternative - that hundreds of people are involved in some deep-state conspiracy to protect the Clintons - has plenty of supporters, but I prefer to take a rational approach to the evidence.
Therefore, while I agree that it would be far preferable if ethical rules prohibited anything that even gave the appearance of a conflict of interest, on the particular issue being investigated I can't see any evidence that could have justified the fact checking sites supporting the allegations against Hillary.
For example, do you not think Abe nominating Trump for a Nobel Peace Prize (and it being mentioned publicly) isn’t influence peddling I have a tax break to sell you.
If Hillary had won and had even 1/100th of the scandals Trump had in his first two years, Tim Kaine would be President right now.
I try not to respond to you frankly because of your consistently condescending attitude, but...
For all the defense of the institution of journalism it's amazing how basic skepticism or fact checking is simply too much to ask from them nowadays. Nothing about the story made sense- why random dudes carry with them rope and bleach in the middle of one of the most liberal cities in the country looking to commit a racist hate crime, why anyone would scream "this is maga country" in said very blue district, how that is a realistic phrase when nobody speaks that way...
Regardless, it's merely a drop in the bucket in a much larger issue of a lack of skepticism for anything that fits their biases. That you singled this out among a sea of other ones doesn't mean much to the larger point.
So, let me get this straight, Politifact is basing their claim that she wasn't involved on the word of her and her assistant? Forgive me if I don't take it at face value.
Nice "fact checking", by the way, uncritically reporting her own statements and the statements of her direct underling as complete fact. Totally neutral and objective.
Yeah, I'm sure he and his 'massive' arsenal could really have brought the government to it's knees! Give me a break. How much of that arsenal could he possibly have carried with him? Is he Neo and can whip machine pistol after machine pistol out of his cloak? He could have accomplished more with one sniper rifle and a clear line of sight to any 'one' of those targets, and one chance is all he would have gotten. Sorry, that dipshit got about as much air time as he deserved.
The credibility of an argument like this is undercut when one decries journalism for not knowing Jussie Smollett faked his attack (They were reporting upon it, not investigating it. There is a difference) and simultaneously holding up conspiracy theories like Uranium One even though it was previously admitted "nothing has been proven".
Calling something a conspiracy theory doesn't make it so. Indeed, throwing labels around and not addressing the actual evidence for the claim is the exact opposite of convincing.
Do you believe politicians and their subordinates at face value? Is credulous acceptance of the statements of the accused how we operate?
To put it another way, would you take Trump and Sessions at their word that Trump had no collusion with Russia? Trump and Jared Kushner? Trump and anyone?
Did you know Uranium 1 is a Canadian company?
Did you know that a Canadian panel also had to approve the sale?
Did you know that freaking Utah, a republican stronghold, also had approve the sale?
Did you know it was passed by a panel of nine agencies, only one headed by Clinton, who recused herself from sitting because of a potential conflict of interest and not one agency objected, nor did Obama who had Veto power?
Yet the Clintons controlled everything because of $145 Million donation because Briebart news said so. Big scary Boogiewoman that Clinton is. She's the deep state puppet master that expands internationally into other countries to make sure people who donate to her charity get their way.
She recused herself, based on what source? I can't find any evidence of it anywhere except for her and her lackey's word, alone.
You yourself said Trump getting nominated for the Nobel Prize was influence peddling. How you don't see 7 million during a deal and lots more shortly before as influence buying, is beyond me.
I'm not responsible for categorically refuting every point you make. I dont have the time of day. Also, I dont see a particularly large amount of value in it (and I did pick the one most discussed). Dont blame me because you started and maintained an argument centered mostly around Uranium One. You've chosen to die on that hill, not me.
You yourself have said there's nothing proven about the meat of the assertion. In addition, your primary argument against it seems to be (and I paraphrase) "Lmao - who uses fact checking sources".
Of course not. Interestingly - you'll find exactly no where in this thread that I've made a concrete stand on the validity of Uranium One. My issue isnt with the idea Clinton may have been corrupt (She probably was to some extent) - my point is with the biased argumentation that you'll crusade against any mistake in the media over getting something wrong, and then parrot Uranium One like it's not a right-wing hit job full of half-truths and a total lack of evidence (again - as you yourself have said).
Also, not for nothing, but I have trouble taking all of this seriously since Trump's Administration is looking to be maybe the most corrupt since Reagan.
No - but then again these arent remotely equivalent situations. Is there an active investigation into collusion over Russia? Yes. Is there an active investigation into Uranium One? (Dont think so, but it wouldnt surprise me if Trump ordered one).
lol was referring to Smollett and the media not Clinton. If the best pro media argument is "it's not their job to get it right" I think that says all it needs to say about their lack of credibility.
Yes, there is actually. And much like the Mueller case so far it's delivered indictments but none that related to the actual deal.
And I don't expect there to be. They'd have to find some written communication or other agreement to a quid pro quo. Ain't gonna happen.
I will say this however- this sort of thing should still be illegal whether or not you can actually find concrete proof of quid pro quo. The mere appearance of corruption is detrimental to society and the courts have an interest in preventing it, I agree entirely with Justice Stevens on this and is why I really hate the Citizens United decision because it based on this same idea that only quid pro quo matters and not overwhelming majority opinion about what corruption is and looks like.
Total lack of evidence is just bull. The payments are there, at the time of the deal, and the favorable policy to show for it. The appearance of corruption, something the law sees problematic in and of itself, is plain as day and only the most partisan of us all would say otherwise.
So, the meat of the assertion, as you say, is all there. All that is not is the death blow. I'd call that pretty well evidenced, just not enough to confirm an absolute fact. Just short of the mark as it were.
It's why I simply laugh when terms like "conspiracy theory" and "total lack of evidence" are bandied about. In any neutral context nobody would use those terms to describe such a pretty well documented set of events.