Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

spooky3

(38,645 posts)
3. Not only did the WaPo's fact checker give BS three Pinocchios, FactCheck.org also
Sat Apr 2, 2016, 10:25 PM
Apr 2016

provided much of the same analysis and conclusion:

http://www.factcheck.org/2015/12/clinton-and-fossil-fuel-money/

"...The $160,000 (as of 12/15) Clinton’s campaign has received from the oil and gas industry comes entirely from oil and gas company employees (her campaign also received $398,000 from oil and gas employees during the 2008 campaign — fifth highest among the presidential candidates). These employees could be executives or merely rank-and-file employees of an oil or gas company. Although the tally includes PAC donations, no PACs tied to the oil and gas industry have donated to the Clinton 2016 campaign, researchers at the Center for Responsive Politics told us."

Here is the WaPo fact checker's column from today:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/04/02/fact-checking-the-clinton-sanders-spat-over-big-oil-contributions/

This is separate from Philip Bump's column, which Steve Benen referenced.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/04/01/why-hillary-clinton-is-justifiably-annoyed-by-critiques-of-her-big-oil-fundraising/

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»Hillary Clinton»Rachel Maddow Show Analyz...»Reply #3