Sanders fires back after Clinton says he's lying

[NWCorona]

"Bernie Sanders’ campaign is firing back at Hillary Clinton after she said she was “so sick” of them lying about her contributions from the fossil fuel industry.
Jeff Weaver, Sanders’ campaign manager, on Friday called Clinton’s statement “disappointing” and untrue, pointing to research from Greenpeace that shows she’s not just receiving money from “individuals” who happen to work in the oil, coal and gas industry, but from 57 industry lobbyists, including 11 who have bundled more than $1 million to help put her in the White House.
Counting money given to super PACs backing Clinton, the fossil fuel industry has donated more than $4.5 million in support of Clinton’s bid, he said in a statement.
“If the Clinton campaign wants to argue that industry lobbyists giving thousands of dollars to her campaign won’t affect her decisions if she’s elected, that’s fine,” he said. “But to call us liars for pointing out basic facts about the secretary’s fundraising is deeply cynical and very disappointing.”"

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016/04/01/sanders-fires-back-after-clinton-says-hes-lying/82513846/

Hillary is having a terrible week.

[cilla4progress]

1. Listening to Howard Dean on MSNBC

trying to sweep up after her now...

Embarrassing...

[Hydra]

59. Team Hill is having to work overtime just to try to keep up with her messes

Not even getting them cleaned up. I almost feel bad for them, but the pile of money they are all sucking up in the process is impossibly dirty.

[kennetha]

2. It's Sanders who is being disingenuous and deeply cynical.

"lobbyist giving thousands of dollars" is the give away


What happened to the "oil and gas industry" donating millions to her campaign.

Oh, didn't happen. Can't happen.

A lie, pure and simple. The cheap demagoguery of an unhinged and desperate candidate.

[Viva_La_Revolution]

6. several points of proof in many greatest page posts

You think we don't understand political reality?

Trying to make people believe that they are not all the same is a fool's errand. But feel free to continue. You might have better luck on another forum with less educated posters.

[questionseverything]

10. here ya go...i found the millions!!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511619761

According to data compiled by Greenpeace’s research department, Secretary Clinton’s campaign and the Super PAC supporting her have received more than $4.5 million from the fossil fuel industry during the 2016 election cycle. While Greenpeace does not officially endorse any political candidate or party, we’re determined to show each candidate that our membership is looking for meaningful climate action and environmental justice in their platforms and policies.

////////////////////////////////////

that doesn't include the foundation's money, many more millions there

[kennetha]

41. this is a lie.

[questionseverything]

47. then hc should sue, since she hasn't i assume she has no grounds to stop the "lies"

http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2015/07/hillary-clinton-bundlers-fossil-fuel-lobbyists

[highprincipleswork]

58. I see, so lobbyists representing the industry don't represent the industry.

[99Forever]

3. Somebody is definitely lying alright.

And it sure as fuck isn't Bernie or his campaign.

[Betty Karlson]

9. projection is a thing... eom

[99Forever]

50. Yes it is. Hillary has a giant case of it.

Cognitive dissonance is also "a thing."

[Betty Karlson]

61. And Hillary's supporters have a giant case of it.

That's what priviledge does to a person.

[Autumn]

4. I hope that next week is just as bad.

This week has been enjoyable.

[DanTex]

5. Now he's pushing conspiracy theories. This isn't going to work out well for him.

[Human101948]

7. This is no conspiracy theory, it's a fact that oil lobbyists are fueling her campaign...

You need to get some better material.

[DanTex]

8. That's absurd. There's no corporate money. Individuals can donate $2700 each.

[Betty Karlson]

11. that horse you are beating this time: does it still show signs of life?

Because last time I saw someone trying to defend Clinton's major campaign contributors, I heard a very final gasp from the one-trick pony's beast of burden.

[DanTex]

12. Truth is not a horse.

[Betty Karlson]

16. Which truth? Is this truth in any way related to that math you are so hot about?

Truth, math, inevitability, sexism, racism, yeah... at this point, they are just so many words from a campaign known for dissimulating and lying and breaking promises and smearing decent people.

[DanTex]

22. The truth that corporations don't donate to campaigns.

[Betty Karlson]

26. You 're right: they donate anonymously to super-PACs

which is why Clinton is not going to do anything to reform Citizens United away.

[DanTex]

29. They can donate to SuperPACs, but so far the funding for both Bernie's and Hillary's SuperPACs

has come from individuals and unions. But I agree with Hillary that Citizens United needs to go.

[Betty Karlson]

35. You agree with Bernie it has to go, or you agree with Clinton's lip-service?

Why do you trust anything that perennial flip-floppety triangulator says? Is your income so high that you can afford to take your chances with her and more status quo? And make no mistke: she is status quo and her presidency will be about keeping it unless she really has exhausted all ways to keep it. Citizens United, and the advantage it gives to the 1 %, is very much part of the status quo. There is no way Clinton will truly dissolve that advantage. At best she would rebrand it.

[DanTex]

46. Both are in agreement on this issue, along with many others.

And I'm not interested in your anti-Hillary tirade.

[JonLeibowitz]

44. You don't know that. Super PACs can receive anonymous $$

[DanTex]

45. Sometimes, and I'm not clear on exactly when that can happen. But there's no evidence of that

having occurred. And the specific donations that have been detailed and people are calling corporate money in fact came from individuals.

[questionseverything]

51. these people are pretty clear...

For questions or media inquiries about this research, please contact Perry Wheeler, [e-mail].

Hillary Clinton’s campaign has been backed by the fossil fuel industry in a number of ways.

First, there are the direct contributions from people working for fossil fuel companies to Clinton’s campaign committee. According to the most recent filings, the committee has received $309,107 (as of March 21, 2016; source: Center for Responsive Politics) from such donors.

Next are the fossil fuel lobbyists, many of whom have also bundled contributions. These donations also flow to Clinton’s campaign committee. Greenpeace has tracked $1,465,610 in bundled and direct donations from lobbyists currently registered as lobbying for the fossil fuel industry. This number excludes donations from lobbyists who are employed directly by a fossil fuel companies, as those donations would have been included in the previous number.

Last are contributions from fossil fuel interests to Super PACs supporting Hillary Clinton. Greenpeace has found $3,250,000 in donations from large donors connected to the fossil fuel industry to Priorities Action USA, a Super PAC supporting Secretary Clinton’s campaign.
All told, the campaign to elect Hillary Clinton for president in 2016 has received more than $4.5 million from lobbyists, bundlers, and large donors connected the fossil fuel industry.

http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/campaign-updates/hillary-clintons-connection-oil-gas-industry/

[DanTex]

52. Those are all individual, not corporate donations.

[questionseverything]

54. you should take that up with greenpeace..one more time

All told, the campaign to elect Hillary Clinton for president in 2016 has received more than $4.5 million from lobbyists, bundlers, and large donors connected the fossil fuel industry.

http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/campaign-updates/hillary-clintons-connection-oil-gas-industry/

[DanTex]

55. The key word is "connected". It's not corporate money, it's money from individuals who are

"connected" with the industry.

[questionseverything]

56. you remind me of an old rap song, wasn't me

basically the rapper was saying no matter what his girl caught him doing he just repeated wasn't me

over

n

over

n

over

but seriously if you are correct and greenpeace is slandering hc...she should sue them

[DanTex]

57. It's a simple fact. There were no corporate donations.

[Betty Karlson]

60. Of course. And the Reagans "didn't deserve the distinction of starting the

national conversation on AIDS'. - technically, it is true. But in truth, it is still far from correct.

[libdem4life]

17. Substituting Opinion as Truth with Zippy One-liners

fits the dead horse beating scenario perfectly.

[revbones]

21. Some people like to obfuscate a lot around here.

Such as reciting the individual campaign contribution limit and ignoring things like super-PAC contributions.

It's a trend that's easily seen through.

"Hey that person spit over there" [points to spot]
"No they didn't"
"Yes they did, we have it on film"
"They didn't spit in that exact spot" [points slightly to the right]
"Yes, they did. It's on film"
"Nope, not in that exact spot.."

[revbones]

13. Maybe you missed comment #2

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511619761

According to data compiled by Greenpeace’s research department, Secretary Clinton’s campaign and the Super PAC supporting her have received more than $4.5 million from the fossil fuel industry during the 2016 election cycle. While Greenpeace does not officially endorse any political candidate or party, we’re determined to show each candidate that our membership is looking for meaningful climate action and environmental justice in their platforms and policies.

////////////////////////////////////

that doesn't include the foundation's money, many more millions there

[DanTex]

14. I saw it. It's false.

[revbones]

15. Oh yeah right - anything you don't agree with is false... I forgot. nt

[DanTex]

19. It's factually wrong, it's not opinion. Corporations don't donate to campaigns.

[revbones]

23. Do you even read the posts you comment on?

it said "Secretary Clinton’s campaign and the Super PAC supporting her "

Sheesh.

[DanTex]

24. Yes, and it's false.

[revbones]

25. You are too funny in your trolling.

[DanTex]

27. I'm factually correct is what I am. They are conflating individual and corporate money.

[revbones]

32. Nope, they obviously said both.

Just because you want to limit the discussion to individual campaign contributions, doesn't make it false that her super-PAC takes in millions that are unlimited. It also doesn't make it false that lobbyist bundlers solicit millions either for the actual campaign.

Does it really feeel like there was an accomplishment made by posts such as these nitpicking away hoping to prove someone false, when they really aren't? I'm just asking since it seems to be a common theme.

[DanTex]

33. But they were lying. There are no corporate contributions.

[revbones]

34. Nope. You're wrong. And by being wrong when saying something that is false... nt

[DanTex]

36. I'm right, and it's obvious. They list a bunch of individual donations, and pretend its corporate.

[revbones]

39. Yeah, sure. Whatever you say.

It must be a little weird to believe that everyone else is always wrong though.

[DanTex]

42. Not everyone else is wrong. Outside the Bernie bubble, people understand how it works.

[revbones]

43. Yep, whatever you say. You're most definitely right by your own definition of right apparently...

[libdem4life]

28. One doesn't deny something that can't happen.

"Her campaign released a similarly deceptive statement, insisting it “has not taken a dollar from oil and gas industry PACs or corporations.”

Which, of course, has been proven wrong a multitude of times. So, wrong on both counts.

Yes she does, and yes she can.

[DanTex]

30. She was right. That never happened. It's a false smear.

[revbones]

37. *Whine* Surely everything negative about Hillary is a false smear!

She's a paragon of virtue that woman is! How dare anyone malign her good character with things like facts!

[DanTex]

38. Dunno about everything, but this one is obviously false.

[revbones]

40. Sure. Whatever you say.

Because just saying it makes it so right?

[libdem4life]

49. Right. Her campaign gets no money from the oil and gas industry???

Next you'll be saying that corporations can't donate to a campaign...that would logically follow.

So, I guess Bernie's doesn't either...if it's impossible.

But he only gets in the mid 5 figures. Hers are in the high 6 figures. But you knew that.

[DanTex]

53. No. And you're right, corporations can't donate to campaigns.

Those totals are from individuals employed in the oil and gas industries. It's individual, not corporate money.

[libdem4life]

20. Two sentences this time. All horse, no cattle might fit better.

[jillan]

18. Was listening to CNN this morning for a couple of hours. That video was played over & over.

Not a pretty site, especially since she was there representing Greenpeace & NOT Bernie.

[itsrobert]

31. Yup, I saw Jeff Weaver lying his ass off on CNN this morning

Even when the host factchecked him and he continued to lie about it.

[CrowCityDem]

48. Hmm...

If I were to file the paperwork to start the "Bernie For TEH WINZ!!" SuperPAC, and start raising money from every lobbyist and industry under the sun, would that make Bernie corrupt?

Of course not. There's absolutely a difference between people and corporations donating money, and between donating to a campaign and a SuperPAC.

Unless you're accusing Hillary of violating the law regarding SuperPAC coordination, the argument that she has taken money from 'the industry' is disingenuous at best, because it applies equally to Bernie.