Sanders uses padded data to back up his claim

[liberal N proud]

Sen. Bernie Sanders uses padded data to back up his claim that “Hillary Clinton received $4.5 million from the fossil fuel industry.”

The figure relies on a tortured definition of fossil fuel money. It includes contributions donated by lobbyists who represent many clients other than oil or gas companies. It also includes money those lobbyists raised from other donors who have nothing to do with the oil and gas industry.

And most of the $4.5 million total is tied to donations made to a super PAC supporting Clinton — which Clinton does not control — by two people who run investment funds that include investments in oil and gas companies. But those investments represent a fraction of the overall investment portfolio.

The issue of fossil fuel money going to the Clinton campaign reemerged when a Greenpeace activist questioned Clinton at a campaign rally in New York on March 31 about whether she would “act on your word to reject fossil fuel money in the future in your campaign?”

Clinton responded, “I do not have — I have money from people who work for fossil fuel companies. … I am so sick of the Sanders campaign lying about me! I’m sick of it!”

As we wrote back in December, Clinton has received relatively little in contributions from oil and gas company employees (and nothing from the companies themselves, as that would be illegal). That hasn’t changed. According to more recent data cited by Sanders, contributions from oil and gas industry employees accounts for 0.2 percent of the nearly $160 million raised by the Clinton campaign so far.


http://www.factcheck.org/2016/04/clintons-fossil-fuel-money-revisited/

[IdaBriggs]

3. And if a Hillary supporter knows something about anything, it's lying.

All the way from "my husband didn't cheat - it's a giant ring wing conspiracy!" to "yes, there are weapons of mass destruction in Iraq!" to subpoenas and classified information on emails "little miss honesty" is always there for America!

So not a lot of moral high ground, eh?

House Republicans Release The Subpoena Hillary Clinton Said She Never Received For Her Emails, The Huffington Post, July 8, 2015 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/07/08/hillary-clinton-emails-_n_7756106.html

WASHINGTON — One day after Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton said she “never had a subpoena” for the emails she sent while secretary of state, House Republicans on Wednesday released a document appearing to contradict her — namely, the subpoena they’d served Clinton earlier this year.

During an interview with CNN’s Brianna Keilar on Tuesday, Clinton said that other secretaries of state had done the same thing as her in the past. Keilar replied, “They used a personal server, and while facing a subpoena, deleted emails from them?"

“You know, you’re starting with so many assumptions,” Clinton responded. “I’ve never had a subpoena, there’s nothing — again, let’s take a deep breath here.”

(snip)

When Clinton on Tuesday said she’d “never had a subpoena,” that appears to be contradicted by the subpoena House Republicans issued her in March. But it depends on what the meaning of the word “had” is. A Clinton campaign spokesperson told The Huffington Post that she had already destroyed the emails in question before the subpoena was received. Clinton turned over some emails to the State Department in late 2014 and then wiped her personal server clean — so by the time the subpoena arrived in March, there was nothing for it to act on.

And then to see an actual copy of the subpoena (it even has the heading "SUBPOENA" in all caps) she was served on March 4, 2015 go here -

http://benghazi.house.gov/sites/republicans.benghazi.house.gov/files/Kendall.Clinton%20Subpoena%20-%202015.03.04.pdf

Keep in mind ALL the government records including the ones she TRIED TO HAVE DELETED have since been retrieved by the FBI.

Unbeknownst to Clinton, IT firm had emails stored on cloud; now in FBI’s hands, McClatchy DC, October 3, 2015 http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/nation-world/national/article37968711.html

WASHINGTON A Connecticut company, which backed up Hillary Clinton‘s emails at the request of a Colorado firm, apparently surprised her aides by storing the emails on a “cloud” storage system designed to optimize data recovery.

The firm, Datto Inc., said Wednesday that it turned over the contents of its storage to the FBI on Tuesday.

A Republican Senate committee chairman, Wisconsin Sen. Ron Johnson, also has asked the firm to provide the committee copies of any data from Clinton’s account still in its possession.

So it will be very interesting to see if she "lied" about them all having to do with yoga and her daughter's wedding - except we already know some of them were "work related" because other people (including Sidney Blumenthal) already turned them in.

[jfern]

4. Yup, at this point anything for a Hillary supporter is false until proven true

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me 5000 times, shame on me.

[salinsky]

7. For those just awakening from a 30 year nap, here's an update ...

... there IS a vast rightwing conspiracy.

[IdaBriggs]

10. Obama hasn't had any trouble with them.

In fact, the only scandal that has plagued his administration is 100% Hillary's fault (her not keeping government records where they belong).

I don't even know ANYTHING about his penis, let alone his sex life (like I do Bill). Michelle hasn't been called to testify about anything, either.

Are you sure it wasn't just "Bill told Hillary there was a vast right wing conspiracy to explain all that screwing around he was doing"? I mean, Hillary kept ATTACKING THE CHARACTER of the women he was sleeping with - who was the one who tape recorded their sexy talk, and then we all got to hear how she MIGHT have faked it (except under oath Bill admitted she didn't)?

[salinsky]

19. There's no doubt about it ...

... it's been nothing but smooth sailing for the Kenyan, Marxist, Muslim, usurper and his transgender wife.

[IdaBriggs]

21. An obstructionist congress is not a vast right wing conspiracy.

Many of those memes you particularly mention were started by Hillary in 2008 (who was directly asked if he was a Muslim and danced around it like she did the "Bernie qualified" one earlier this week), and there hasn't been one Congressional investigation on ANY OF THOSE as opposed to the laundry list of problems the Clinton had - and they haven't even brought any articles of impeachment despite his "crime" of being not only "black" but also a Democrat!

How could that possibly be? Maybe the Clintons were actually their own worst enemy because of all the bad decisions and lying? Nah...they just like Obama better!

Yeah, that's it.

[pinebox]

43. Not a RW conspircacy

[AgerolanAmerican]

2. I'm pretty sure the government of Saudi Arabia is in the fossil fuels industry

and even with the Clinton Foundation's limited, vague and flawed disclosures to date it has unambiguously admitted receiving between $5 million and $25 million from that source. Several other oil kingdoms are also on the list of 7-figure contributors.

Whatever the story is with this one PAC, there is no credible way to assert that Clinton through other means has not taken in more than $5 million (and possibly up to $40ish million) from those fossil fuel suppliers alone.

Clinton's statement, on this basis, is incontrovertibly false.

[IdaBriggs]

6. Dang it - those weren't supposed to be in the fossil fuel category -

Those were "buying arms to ship to ISIS" and "countries that execute gay people" and "countries that don't respect women's rights!"

Why people just don't understand these things is really silly - Greenpeace just doesn't understand the categories Hillary supporters find acceptable!

[Dem2]

28. Yes this smear must stick because I've said it enough times that it has to be true

Absolutely unbelievable that people are saying things like this.

[IdaBriggs]

33. How dare we think for ourselves? How dare we not be stupid?

There's a reason no one believes a word your side says - the non-stop lies get old. Greenpeace is credible; Hillary's accounting is not.

[Dem2]

34. Greenpeace screwed up

But more importantly, you screwed up tremendously when you said "your side" since I support both candidates.

That just showed me how blind you are to facts or reality so nothing you say will I consider to be anything but from a completely biased perspective.

[IdaBriggs]

38. I don't believe you. I believe the very clear numbers from Greenpeace.

And yes, I think you are a pure Hillary supporter. I have seen enough of your other posts that I find your "neutral" stance not credible.

[Dem2]

42. Hey believe whatever you want

You have zero credibility to me anymore. You're just a blind partisan who will say anything to blindly support your candidate.

I like both candidates, but I will not put up with b******* lies just because they come from an organization that I respect.

[IdaBriggs]

45. I admit my partisan bias on many issues, including Hillary being a bold faced liar.

Similar to Trump, actually. She will just spout the most obvious lies, and expect people to believe it because she says so.

My current favorite involves subpoenas and classified information on email. She keeps saying "there was no classified information on my emails, and if there was, it's because they changed it later" but the (independent) Inspector General says that is not true - and we've got the leaked letter in PDF form on the Internet to prove it. (Go here to see it - http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/01/19/inspector-general-clinton-emails-had-intel-from-most-secretive-classified-programs.html)

Then there is the whole subpoena nonsense - why lie about something so easily proven?

House Republicans Release The Subpoena Hillary Clinton Said She Never Received For Her Emails, The Huffington Post, July 8, 2015 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/07/08/hillary-clinton-emails-_n_7756106.html

WASHINGTON — One day after Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton said she “never had a subpoena” for the emails she sent while secretary of state, House Republicans on Wednesday released a document appearing to contradict her — namely, the subpoena they’d served Clinton earlier this year.

During an interview with CNN’s Brianna Keilar on Tuesday, Clinton said that other secretaries of state had done the same thing as her in the past. Keilar replied, “They used a personal server, and while facing a subpoena, deleted emails from them?"

“You know, you’re starting with so many assumptions,” Clinton responded. “I’ve never had a subpoena, there’s nothing — again, let’s take a deep breath here.”

(snip)

When Clinton on Tuesday said she’d “never had a subpoena,” that appears to be contradicted by the subpoena House Republicans issued her in March. But it depends on what the meaning of the word “had” is. A Clinton campaign spokesperson told The Huffington Post that she had already destroyed the emails in question before the subpoena was received. Clinton turned over some emails to the State Department in late 2014 and then wiped her personal server clean — so by the time the subpoena arrived in March, there was nothing for it to act on.

And then to see an actual copy of the subpoena (it even has the heading "SUBPOENA" in all caps) she was served on March 4, 2015 go here -

http://benghazi.house.gov/sites/republicans.benghazi.house.gov/files/Kendall.Clinton%20Subpoena%20-%202015.03.04.pdf

Keep in mind ALL the government records including the ones she TRIED TO HAVE DELETED have since been retrieved by the FBI.

Unbeknownst to Clinton, IT firm had emails stored on cloud; now in FBI’s hands, McClatchy DC, October 3, 2015 http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/nation-world/national/article37968711.html

WASHINGTON A Connecticut company, which backed up Hillary Clinton‘s emails at the request of a Colorado firm, apparently surprised her aides by storing the emails on a “cloud” storage system designed to optimize data recovery.

The firm, Datto Inc., said Wednesday that it turned over the contents of its storage to the FBI on Tuesday.

A Republican Senate committee chairman, Wisconsin Sen. Ron Johnson, also has asked the firm to provide the committee copies of any data from Clinton’s account still in its possession.

So it will be very interesting to see if she "lied" about them all having to do with yoga and her daughter's wedding - except we already know some of them were "work related" because other people (including Sidney Blumenthal) already turned them in.

[Dem2]

46. No offense, but

the "smother the person you're talking to with the "kitchen sink" of off-topic cherry-picked copyrighted info" is probably the least effective and most likely to turn off the person you're arguing with method that there is.

You should see what it looks like on my phone!

This is me ->

[IdaBriggs]

47. Short version:

Congress Guy: "She deleted stuff while under a subpoena!"

Hillary: "I never had a subpoena!"

Congress: "Here's a copy of it!"

Hillary: "That thing is a subpoena? But I deleted stuff before Congress gave it to me!"

State Department: "We asked you for ALL your work emails and you said you gave them to us. What did you delete?"

Hillary: "Chill out - I only deleted personal stuff - yoga and wedding crap. And I had the server wiped, so you have to take my word for it."

Company that Wiped Server: "Hey, we made backups - anybody want a copy?"

FBI: "We'll take them."

Hillary: "Oh, crap?"

[Dem2]

50. So you're hoping to "disqualify" Hillary by hook or by crook

Got it. So much for winning on one's merit's eh?


(This is what I mean by off -topic, this thread isn't about this topic.)

Edit: and I don't initiate attacks against either candidate, though I will respond to them. Sometimes I agree, usually I don't, but your characterization of me is bullshit from a hyper partisan.

[IdaBriggs]

53. No. The thread is about HONESTY.

I have given you a fact based example with links to sources of Hillary LYING bold faced to the public about stuff that is easily proven to be lied. (Never got a subpoena/here's a copy.) She also lied about endangering National Security with her bad judgment - she says she didn't, but the Inspector General says she did. Now we will wait to find out if she is lying about having committed a crime or not, because the FBI is going to give us an answer on that soon.

If Hillary *didn't* commit a crime, Dems will be expected to drop it. (We all know the Republicans won't, but that is a different issue.) Bernie has nothing to do with this mess and neither do I. This is between Hillary and Obama - she was working for him when she made what she now admits were some "bad choices".

BUT the issue of Hillary's veracity is fair game, and that is what I gave you links about.

[Dem2]

57. OK

Enjoy your game of "gotcha".

[Dem2]

27. Yes it must be true because because because

You just know it's true?

[IdaBriggs]

37. Wow - now we have to educate Hillary supporters on common knowledge?

This is why education is important.

Okay, I'll take a crack at it. Go to Wikipedia. Type in Saudia Arabia. It will take you to a page filled with information about Saudia Arabia!

Here is some of that information - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saudi_Arabia

Petroleum was discovered in 1938 and followed up by several other finds in the Shia-majority Eastern Province.(16) Saudi Arabia has since become the world's largest oil producer and exporter, controlling the world's second largest oil reserves, and the sixth largest gas reserves.(17) The kingdom is categorized as a World Bank high-income economy with a high Human Development Index,(18) and is the only Arab country to be part of the G-20 major economies.(19)(20) However, the economy of Saudi Arabia is the least diversified in the Gulf Cooperation Council, lacking any significant service or production sector (apart from the extraction of resources).(21) A monarchical autocracy,(22)(23) Saudi Arabia has the fourth highest military expenditure in the world,(24)(25) and in 2010–14, SIPRI found that Saudi Arabia was the world's second largest arms importer.(26) Saudi Arabia is considered a regional and middle power.(27) In addition to the GCC, it is an active member of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation and OPEC.(28) The country has attracted criticism for its lack of democratic freedom, with a "Not Free" ranking by Freedom House,(29) the status of women in Saudi society,(30) as well as its usage of capital punishment.(31)

[Dem2]

40. This is so arrogant and full of crap

Yes only you can be the Arbiter of knowledge.

I am embarrassed for you.

[IdaBriggs]

41. Wikipedia = arrogant? And full of crap?

You should be embarrassed. I have nothing to do with it.

[Dem2]

44. Enjoy the bubble

You will twist anything into what you want it to say

[uponit7771]

5. The "he's different" veil is falling off of Sanders fast, he's losing more than just this primary

[salinsky]

8. Yup ...

... dignity, legacy, face ...

[Buzz Clik]

9. Sanders is just another lying politician

It is kinda sad.

[Human101948]

11. Yes, turns out he's just like Hillary...

NOw, who's the bigger liar?

[Buzz Clik]

18. Who gives a shit? We knew about Hillary going into the primary. All this promise of revolution...

.... from Sanders was pure horseshit.

[Human101948]

30. Only because people like you are obstructiionists...

It takes more than one man to make a revolution. And if we overturned Citzens United it would be a revolution. But it is difficult to see the people who benefit from that method of politics to ever join the revolution.

As the song says, Same as it ever was, same as it ever was...

[Buzz Clik]

31. If you want a revolution, you damned well find a leader. Sanders isn't it.

[Human101948]

35. You're probably right, but Hillary is just more of the same...

Throw out a few crumbs to mollify the followers and vastly enrich the one percent.

[itsrobert]

12. Three Pinocchios lying again?

It must be a day of the week that ends in "day".

[pdsimdars]

13. This is data Greenpeace did a lot of research to obtain.

A tip to the wise (if there is any of that left) is that it really doesn't work to go head to head with Bernie on truthfullness. Especially if you are Hillary Clinton.

Her campaign has gotten about $1.2 Million from bundlers.

And if she hasn't taken money from them, why won't she sign Greenpeace pledge?

[liberal N proud]

14. WOW

You really want to claim that Sanders is truthful after the last few days.

[Motown_Johnny]

15. Some people still try to say Hillary is truthful after the last few decades.

This Rovian tactic of hitting him on his strength won't work.

Those numbers are from Greenpeace and the Clinton distortions about them will backfire.

Bernie is seen as honest and trustworthy by Far more people than Hillary for a reason, because he is.

[rhett o rick]

16. Absolutely. The desperation is growing as the claims are getting crazier. Sanders

nailed it on breaking up the banks. Clinton is ok with a bank monopoly but you won't discuss that. Goldman-Sachs forever.

Clinton is deep in oil money no matter how you cut it. And now you guys hate Green Peace. The ship of the Wealthy 1% is sinking.

[liberal N proud]

20. Sanders nailed it on breaking up the banks...

Daily News: Well, it does depend on how you do it, I believe. And, I'm a little bit confused because just a few minutes ago you said the U.S. President would have authority to order...

Sanders: No, I did not say we would order. I did not say that we would order. The President is not a dictator.

Daily News: Okay. You would then leave it to JPMorgan Chase or the others to figure out how to break it, themselves up. I'm not quite...

Sanders: You would determine is that, if a bank is too big to fail, it is too big to exist. And then you have the secretary of treasury and some people who know a lot about this, making that determination. If the determination is that Goldman Sachs or JPMorgan Chase is too big to fail, yes, they will be broken up.

Daily News: Okay. You saw, I guess, what happened with Metropolitan Life. There was an attempt to bring them under the financial regulatory scheme, and the court said no. And what does that presage for your program?

Sanders: It's something I have not studied, honestly, the legal implications of that

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/04/bernie-sanderss-rough-ride-with-the-daily-news/476919/

[rhett o rick]

23. Cherry picking. His comment was about a specific case that he wasn't familiar with.

The experts that commented on the interview backed Sanders. The interview was a hatchet job.

The NY Daily News Hit Piece on Bernie EXPOSED!
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1017351277

Most experts agree with Sanders on the need to break up the banks.

http://progressiveissue.com/170-top-economists-back-bernie-sanders-plan-to-break-up-the-biggest-banks/

Your desperation is palpable. Do you think we need to break up the banks? If not, is there a point when we should, like for example we end up with one BIG bank?

[PatrickforO]

58. So, we're gonna disqualify Sanders because he did not know about a certain case?

What about the big banks? You want to leave them? They are bundling again you know, derivatives. Creating a new bubble. Ripping us off. According to a thing the Today Show did this week, even their fucking COIN COUNTING machines are off, by a lot.

I don't get it, liberal. The things Bernie is advocating have been advocated by Democrats for decades, but now suddenly they are wrong?

No, a real split in the party has happened, and it needed to. The so called 'progressives,' or Third Way, or whatever else you want to call them, seem OK with the systematic rape of our treasury by big corporations, our descent into a police state with forfeiture laws and the 'Patriot' Act, a forever war that keeps on perpetuating itself...

Lots of things wrong, liberal. Basically John Q American is getting fucked. The Democratic establishment, the Republican establishment, the corporate owned media, all of it.

Just taking a socially liberal position or two IS NO LONGER ENOUGH.

That's why I support Bernie and not Clinton.

[liberal N proud]

59. The main theme of his campaign is beaking up bank

He had damn better have a fucking plan or at least thought about it!

/revision/latest?cb=20121013015809

[PatrickforO]

60. He does have a plan in spite of this particular effort to say he does not

because he isn't familiar with a particular case. As he (correctly) pointed out in the other hatchet job interview, the Fed has nothing to do with it. He would have the authority under Dodd-Frank and would invoke the help of the Treasury Department to make it happen. C'mon.

[liberal N proud]

61. If I am going to be an expert on something, I had better know everything about it

And that would include EVERY case!

[IdaBriggs]

22. Yes. Because everyone knows what she was inferring...

And none of us are stupid enough not to figure out what she meant.

The denial is just as credible as "I did not have sexual relations with that woman!" Or her never having gotten a subpoena.

She's as credible as Trump.

[liberal N proud]

25. That is BS

[IdaBriggs]

29. You have your opinion, and the other 75% of the country has theirs.

http://dailycaller.com/2016/02/17/poll-hillary-clinton-least-honest-and-trustworthy-of-all-presidential-candidates/

Asked whether they think Clinton is honest and trustworthy, 56 percent of respondents say she is not. A little more than a quarter of those polled think Clinton is honest and trustworthy.

Republican candidate Donald Trump beat Clinton in the trustworthiness category by four percentage point. Democratic candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders is seen as overwhelmingly more honest and trustworthy than Clinton. Sanders beats her by a margin of 32 percentage points.

“Sanders is the clear winner on a quality that matter most to a third of the public – being honest and trustworthy. In fact, his rating on honesty is the highest of any of the remaining candidates with the public overall, Republican or Democrat. Clinton and Republican Donald Trump fare the worst,” writes YouGov’s Kathy Frankovic.

[Admiral Loinpresser]

54. ^^THIS^^ n/t

[Surya Gayatri]

17. What? How can it be? "His Pureness" is being less than truthful?

Nooooo! Say it ain't so. So many have SO much staked on his squeaky cleanness.

[Human101948]

32. Hillary has the highest negatives in history...and you just can't ignore that...

You better figure out something to fix that or it is going to bite us in the ass on Election Day.

[LAS14]

24. Thanks for finding this.

[Dem2]

26. It sounds like those three pinocchios were well-earned

I hate this where people have to lie to try to slime their opponent.

[mcar]

36. K&R

[WhiteTara]

39. It's a big bus...there goes Factcheck!

[Avalux]

48. Are you still stuck on trying to justify Hillary's ties to the fossil fuel industry?

Give it a rest, we all know the truth.

[liberal N proud]

49. The truth is that Bernie is a liar?

That we all know!

[Avalux]

51. LOLOL nice try. Hillary is the liar, projection isn't working. n/t

[pkdu]

52. Three Pinnochios. Not one , not two ..but THREE. Nt

[liberal N proud]

56. Three Pinnochios says otherwise here!

[HassleCat]

55. But you know what?

Some of those lobbyists work exclusively for fossil fuel interests, so the $4.5 million figure is too high, but it's not as far over the top as Clinton wants us to believe. The fact is, she gets a pretty good chunk of change from fossil fuel interests.

[greatlaurel]

62. Great post, liberal N proud!

Thank you for posting the facts. Good job. Failing to accept the facts is very Republican.

[CajunBlazer]

63. Sanders can be as disingenous in his attacks as any Republican

I thought that this was the guy who was going to run a "clean campaign" and only talk about the issues?

[DemonGoddess]

64. Thank you liberal N proud!

Glad you're posting FACTS.