kenrexford, on 2016-September-19, 12:00, said:
If you have not seen any of Hillary's lies, and have no idea about any corruption on her part, you must be living in a bubble, which might explain why you think the NYT is neutral. Try Googling "things Hillary has lied about" and you will get quite a few examples of lies. Some are quite funny. For corruption, you could go all in and watch Clinton Cash (
https://www.youtube....h?v=7LYRUOd_QoM), or just try reading things Stein and Sanders have pointed out about Hillary Clinton. Surely Stein and Sanders are not exactly right-wingers.
I did find this:
The 7 Wildest Lies From Hillary Clinton
Let me say up front that I don't consider false statements to be "lies" unless the person knows the statements are false. I have unwittingly made false statements myself. Along with lies, there are mistakes, misstatements, and unreliable memories. Nevertheless, if this is a list of her wildest "lies" over all of the years in her public life, the criticism of her as a "liar" is sheer nonsense.
I do know that she has made false statements, and that she has no doubt lied. She's human. (Although I can't ever remember having done so, it's even possible that I've lied sometime in the long-distant past to avoid looking stupid.)
I haven't found anything that smacks of "corruption" though, but did find that Bernie Sanders does
not believe Hillary to be corrupt. He did object to her high-paid speeches during the primary, but it's quite a leap to portray that as corruption. Jill Stein disagrees with the decision not to prosecute Hillary over the email server. I think that keeping the private email server was
very poor decision, but have no reason to second-guess James Comey and the people working with him.
I did find some information on your reference to Peter Schweizer's
Clinton Cash:
Clinton Cash: errors dog Bill and Hillary exposé – but is there any 'there' there?
Quote
If his aim were to show that Hillary Clinton was swayed in her decision-making while US secretary of state by money flowing to the Clintons from foreign governments and elites, then he has failed – by his own admission – to have found the key evidence that proves it.
“We cannot ultimately know what goes on in their minds and ultimately prove the links between the money they took in and the benefits that subsequently accrued to themselves, their friends, and their associates,” Schweizer writes in the book’s conclusion.
In an interview with the sympathetic Fox News (owned by Rupert Murdoch, who also owns Harper, the publisher of Clinton Cash) it was put to Schweizer that he hadn’t “nailed” his thesis. “It’s hard for any author to nail it – one of the strategies of the Clinton camp is to set a bar for me as an author that is impossible to meet,” he replied.
Then there have been the errors. The most cringe-inducing involves a passage in the book in which Schweizer draws from a press release from TD Bank in which the Canadian financial institution supposedly announced its divestment from the contentious Keystone XL oil pipeline. The author suggests TD Bank tried to persuade the US government to back the pipeline using Bill Clinton as a conduit – an attempt that eventually failed when Obama kicked the decision down the road until after the 2012 presidential election, leading to TD Bank’s decision to divest.
Yet the press release was revealed to be a fake the same week it was circulated.
Similarly, Schweizer attempts in the chapter on the Haiti earthquake, Disaster Capitalism Clinton-Style, to link three lucrative speeches given by Bill Clinton in Ireland for a total of $600,000 to the awarding of a major contract in Haiti to Digicel, the telecoms company owned by Irish magnate Dennis O’Brien who had arranged Clinton’s appearances.
But as Buzzfeed pointed out, Bill Clinton was not paid on those occasions.
Perhaps the most seriously misleading element of the book involves the purchase by the Russian State Atomic Nuclear Agency (Rosatom) of a Canadian company, Uranium One, that had a large stake in US uranium output. Schweizer claims that a “central role” in the decision of the US government to approve the purchase was played by Hillary Clinton at the State Department at the same time as large donations were being made to the Clinton Foundation by individuals directly involved in the deal.
Yet in this case, as Time has shown, the State Department was only one of nine members of the inter-agency committee that made the final call, and even then there is no evidence that Clinton herself ever took part in the discussions.
If all the false statements in this book constitute "lies," isn't the author also completely untrustworthy? Why the double standard? Is it a man/woman thing?
The growth of wisdom may be gauged exactly by the diminution of ill temper. — Friedrich Nietzsche
The infliction of cruelty with a good conscience is a delight to moralists — that is why they invented hell. — Bertrand Russell
Help
