That, and is there any specific proof linking approval of the deals to the donations? Quite a lot of groups have donated to the Clinton Foundation, and I sincerely doubt that approving any deals was something to be done solely at Clinton's discretion.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am somewhat curious as to how those changes in arms deals compare to changes for countries that didn't donate to the foundation. ...
"The 143 percent increase in U.S. arms sales to Clinton Foundation donors compares to an 80 percent increase in such sales to all countries over the same time period."-IBTimes.com
That, and is there any specific proof linking approval of the deals to the donations? Quite a lot of groups have donated to the Clinton Foundation, and I sincerely doubt that approving any deals was something to be done solely at Clinton's discretion.
" Just two months before the deal was finalized, Boeing -- the defense contractor that manufactures one of the fighter jets the Saudis were especially keen to acquire, the F-15 -- contributed $900,000 to the Clinton Foundation, according to a company press release."-IBTimes.com
I'm sure Boeing donated the money because they are kind-hearted people legal entity, that cares more about charitable giving then making profits. Even though their corporate charter demands maximizing profits for shareholders, I'm sure it's really about the love. Sarcasm aside, I don't think there is going to be a "smoking gun" email because there doesn't need to be. Corporations (and everyone really) knows that if you give big money to politicians they do you favors (and come to your third wedding). Boeing knew what they would be getting when they gave the money, and Clinton knew what they expected when she took it.
Boeing donates a lot to charity. Counting employee stuff, the best record I could find was that in 2013, it was about $176 million. I'm certain the phrase "for tax benefits" is involved somewhere, but the Clinton Foundation is hardly the only recipient. XD
That, and Boeing is one of the country's larger businesses, and part of the Department of State's job is often seen as promoting American businesses. We have a lot of allies we don't always agree with. We have a lot of trading partners we don't always agree with.
So... the amount increased when Obama took office. Are we to assume that the amount of business we do with foreign countries should always remain exactly the same, regardless of our relative statements? Otherwise, saying that more trade happened under Obama than Bush is interesting, but not exactly a smoking gun. Indeed, one could argue that doing more business is sort of the whole point to begin with.
(Note: I'm not actually saying I support the arms deals, or that there was no corruption here. XD I'm just trying to play devil's advocate for a bit.)
I know many states had referendums on marijuana legalization and gay marriage in 2012, but it doesn't look like either of our fair states were among them.
Or was that 2014? All these years blur together when you're a middle aged pot smoker.
(Legalization? Feh.)
Just went and picked up the ballot access petitions for Jill at three southern New Hampshire town halls.
About a quarter were disqualified, but if that ratio holds true across the state, we should have her on the ballot here in the Granite State.
Not that I'm going to vote for her.
So... the amount increased when Obama took office. Are we to assume that the amount of business we do with foreign countries should always remain exactly the same, regardless of our relative statements? Otherwise, saying that more trade happened under Obama than Bush is interesting, but not exactly a smoking gun. Indeed, one could argue that doing more business is sort of the whole point to begin with.
I don't think we're saying more trade or business increased under Obama, although that may be true, I wouldn't know.
What we're talking about is selling fighter jets and other items of mass death at a higher rate to blood-soaked regimes who donated to the Clinton Foundation than those who didn't.
Does this reflect an overall change in arms sales policies or other changes in the political situation? Or just Clinton corruption?
IIRC, in 2011, Saudi Arabia invaded Bahrain to crush the Arab Spring movement there. Maybe that's the change you're looking for that required more fighter jets?
If it's a choice between personal venality or blood-soaked realpolitik that would make her mentor Kissinger proud, I'm not sure it makes much of a difference.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
...Nothing illegal, but it seems that should be the sort of thing that is frowned upon in government. I personally feel that if you are a politician who accepts large amounts of cash, you should be ineligible for a position to give favors to those who paid you a lot of money. Obviously, many people disagree with this idea. What I perceive as bribery is shrewd business dealings to others.It's not frowned upon in the government though. You're basically describing US foreign policy since 1940 (with the Wilson and Monroe doctrines being the basis/justification for doing it).
It's so entrenched, I highly doubt Bernie Sanders, Jill Stein or Gary Johnson would be able to change it even if they were elected president. Name a president who didn't engage in this policy, and I'd bet they were born before the end of Reconstruction.
I don't like it either, but I'm not going to vote based on an issue that zero candidates can even change (regardless of their opinion on the subject). This is going to continue as long as the US is a superpower, and probably for a while afterwards too.
Edit: Here's an example, Carter was the most vocal opponent of arms sales of any president in the past 70 years. Yet his administration sold billions of arms EVERY YEAR. Including:
Even before announcing this decision, Carter had made a virtual about-face on the arms export issue. In February 1978 he authorized the transfer of two hundred advanced combat aircraft to three countries in the Middle East—-supplying sixty F-15s to Saudi Arabia, fifty F-5Es to Egypt, and a combination of ninety F-15s and F-16s to Israel. Six months later he gave preliminary approval to the sale of another $12 billion worth of high-tech weaponry to Iran. Other major sales of this sort were announced in the final months of his administration.And that was a
And my response is that even presidents who morally objected to the sales of arms, didn't receive donations to their private foundations, still sold the Saudis arms. My point is that the arms sales would happen regardless of whether the Clinton Foundation received donations or not. The donation certainly seems suspicious, and maybe influenced aspects of the deal, but without something more specific, I highly doubt it affected whether the sale happened or not.
Maybe an argument could be made that they'd have received one plane less, or a model a year older. I think that is significantly harder to prove and show.
The Saudis are routinely recipients of arms from every president. During Obama's tenure, I'm not surprised that the amount of arms sold increased, as Obama's policy has been to disengage American forces and instead influence regional actors, focusing on bolstering people who at least seem to not be our enemies. Bush instead spent that money (and more) using our own forces to do the dirty work, while Obama is using drones and the Saudi military. You can't use the Saudi military though if they aren't equipped.
Again, I don't agree with this policy and lean significantly towards a pacifist methodology. I don't see anyone on the national landscape who both espouses such a policy AND has the experience and influence to effect it. Sanders and Johnson don't strike me as pacifist as much as isolationist, which is a large concern for me as well.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
In short, "Correlation does not imply causation".
You can use this website to make a short list of arms imports/exports by country.
You can see that yearly sales of arms to Saudi Arabia has increased since Clinton left the State Department.
2009: 231
2010: 345
2011: 398
2012: 401
2013: 615
2014: 1383
2015: 1764
Numbers are $m's in constant 1990 dollar value. It's not a small jump either after she left the administration. The amount from 2012 to 2015 has quadrupled.
Clinton's tenure in the State Department oversaw a much smaller increase in sales than Kerry's has.
In short, "Correlation does not imply causation".
TL:DR ;p
Also, it's not like Bill and Hillary are taking money out of the Foundation.
And this is the biggest point. The charity does not benefit the Clintons beyond the 'prestige' of it having their name. Running charities is a huge pain in the butt, especially for not getting paid for it and going as far as they already have in keeping everything as open as possible.
The absolute worst accusations that can be leveled is "appearances" of impropriety that only appear if you squint while looking at things cross-eye and assume that somehow multimillionaires go corrupt over a couple hundred thousand.
All in all it's just another crap fest.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
RE: Trump spokeswoman says "There are vast numbers of secret trump voters that only we know about, so we're not worried about polls"
Hahahahaha hahahahaha hahahahaha
Hahahahaha hahahahaha hahahahaha
Hahahahaha hahahahaha hahahahaha.
Another translation "The democrats can't steal the election, because we already have our top Russian hackers working on it"
That's what the lady on CNN pretty much said. :-D
No, no, they've been mentioning that for awhile now. Basically, their campaign seems to think that a lot of people who want to vote for Trump aren't admitting it, so he's actually a much stronger candidate than basically any poll suggests.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
...I have to admit, when I think about Trump supporters, "shy about identifying themselves" isn't on the list of traits I feel they share.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In their defense (not that they deserve one), it's basically a cardinal rule of campaigning that you cannot appear to anticipate anything other than a victory. I'm sure they don't believe it, but they absolutely must come up with a rationalization that allows them to behave outwardly as though they are winning, while facing polling numbers that make it clear that the race is basically unwinnable.
Last election it was "The polls are skewed, the unskewed polls show that we're winning." This election it's "The polls are wrong, because a lot of our voters are scared to admit they support Trump." It's nonsense, they know it's nonsense, we know it's nonsense, most of the world at large knows it's nonsense, but it's infinitely preferable to, "Yeah, we're getting destroyed."
If you add all 4 years of arms sales to Saudi Arabia together (during Clinton's time as Secretary of State), it still wouldn't break into top 10 biggest years of arms sales to that country. 1982, 1983, 1986, 1993, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2014 and 2015 each had more sales of arms to Saudi Arabia in one year than Hillary oversaw in her 4 years combined.
Exactly. I mean how are we supposed to add all these pieces up: Clinton is a warmonger who has to be bribed to sell more weapons to dictators. The bribes are donations to a charity that she doesn't directly benefit from and that is widely respected for its work and highly rated by the various groups that track such things. Neither her nor Bill or Chelsea collect money from the Foundation - they're not paid a salary by it or anything else. In fact, Clinton also donates the bribes she collects as speaking fees.
It really isn't clear how this nefarious scheme is supposed to work.Beyond that, the Clintons are making plans not only to have the Foundation stop accepting donations from foreign governments while she's president, but possibly to spin it off from them entirely.
Meanwhile, we're told a little way back in this discussion that Trump's loans from other countries and business ventures in other countries won't influence him, even though he benefits from them directly and plans to retain ownership while President, just letting his children do the active management.
Admittedly, Trump hasn't yet been bribed to abuse his governmental authority - because he has never had any. He has allegedly been on the other side of that equation.
To the last point "He has allegedly been on the other side of that equation." - during the primaries one of his attacks on his opponents was that he had bought them.
|
No, no, they've been mentioning that for awhile now. Basically, their campaign seems to think that a lot of people who want to vote for Trump aren't admitting it, so he's actually a much stronger candidate than basically any poll suggests.
I was more worried about them thinking they have some manchurian voters at their disposal or something.
In their defense (not that they deserve one), it's basically a cardinal rule of campaigning that you cannot appear to anticipate anything other than a victory. I'm sure they don't believe it, but they absolutely must come up with a rationalization that allows them to behave outwardly as though they are winning, while facing polling numbers that make it clear that the race is basically unwinnable.
Last election it was "The polls are skewed, the unskewed polls show that we're winning." This election it's "The polls are wrong, because a lot of our voters are scared to admit they support Trump." It's nonsense, they know it's nonsense, we know it's nonsense, most of the world at large knows it's nonsense, but it's infinitely preferable to, "Yeah, we're getting destroyed."
The thing is, the didn't know it was nonsense last election. In fact, last week, a Fox reporter basically called the poll inaccuracy line b%%$~%$+, because she refuses to get duped again, reminding people of how stunned they were when the polls turned out to be right.
The fact that a subset of Republican voters/pundits (see: Eric Bolling) believes the lie is sort of the point. It's just barely plausible enough that people who really need to believe it can point to it and say, "Yeah, we've got a shot." The rest of the world - independents, Democrats, and most level-headed Republicans - sees it as unsubstantiated wishful thinking.
And, somehow, Trump still leads in my state.
I really need to move. :-/
|
|
And, somehow, Trump still leads in my state.
I really need to move. :-/
I knew what state you were talking about without any prior knowledge and without even clicking the link.
*offers hugs*
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The fact that he's got more than 10% anywhere is scary to me and i'm white ...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Also, it's not like Bill and Hillary are taking money out of the Foundation.
You mean in the way that Trump started increasing prices he is charging for his campaign to rent his properties after his campaign started receiving serious outside funding? The news media interestingly enough, have barely made a peep on this correlation.
And it seems Tiny Donnie may well have broken the law by having his campaign purchase over $55,000 worth if his book from Barnes & Nobel's (because buying them from the publisher directly, which is more the norm doesn't count for the NYT Best Seller list). If he received royalties for those copies he's broken the law.
The alleged billionaire's campaign is also soliciting foreign nationals for campaign donations.
His campaign might also be making illegal tax-free payments to campaign staff... twice.
His campaign has paid for the services of the Draper Sterling firm. Someone created a legal entity with the name of a firm from Mad Men. The Trump campaign has paid them about $35,000, and another super-PAC has paid them $56,000. For what? No one knows (or at least no public information is available).
And it seems Tiny Donnie may well have broken the law by having his campaign purchase over $55,000 worth if his book from Barnes & Nobel's (because buying them from the publisher directly, which is more the norm doesn't count for the NYT Best Seller list). If he received royalties for those copies he's broken the law.The alleged billionaire's campaign is also soliciting foreign nationals for campaign donations.
His campaign might also be making illegal tax-free payments to campaign staff... twice.
His campaign has paid for the services of the Draper Sterling firm. Someone created a legal entity with the name of a firm from Mad Men. The Trump campaign has paid them about $35,000, and another super-PAC has paid them $56,000. For what? No one knows (or at least no public information is available).
I would not be surprised to find out that the ownership of the Sterling Firm ultimately traces back to Trump himself.
To continue, any corporation right now that is NOT loaded with a lot of debt is probably being managed by an idiot. Interest rates are as low as they've ever been (I've seen some graphs on that subject that go back to the 1500s; in one case I think to the Roman Empire)
The lowest recorded Roman rate that I can think of, from private moneylenders, is 4%, which occurred in the context of a major coinage glut when Augustus brought the cash he'd looted during the conquest of Egypt to the City. More ordinarily, rates tended to be in the high single to low double digits depending on the time period (the legal cap was 12% for much of the Empire under one of Julius Caesar's laws, though enforcement was not constant). Rates faced by noncitizens (including provincials) could be higher.
You will find plenty of major no-interest loans from individuals (not moneylenders) or the state, mostly for political purposes, but those would be special cases and not generally available to an ordinary borrower.
I'm not sure you'd find any rates lower than that 4% elsewhere in antiquity. Evidence that I'm aware of for the ancient Near East and Greece points to much higher interest rates than prevailed in Rome. On the other end of things, even that most aggressively Christian of emperors, Justinian, set higher limits in his anti-usury measures.
To continue, any corporation right now that is NOT loaded with a lot of debt is probably being managed by an idiot. Interest rates are as low as they've ever been (I've seen some graphs on that subject that go back to the 1500s; in one case I think to the Roman Empire)The lowest recorded Roman rate that I can think of, from private moneylenders, is 4%, which occurred in the context of a major coinage glut when Augustus brought the cash he'd looted during the conquest of Egypt to the City. More ordinarily, rates tended to be in the high single to low double digits depending on the time period (the legal cap was 12% for much of the Empire under one of Julius Caesar's laws, though enforcement was not constant). Rates faced by noncitizens (including provincials) could be higher.
You will find plenty of major no-interest loans from individuals (not moneylenders) or the state, mostly for political purposes, but those would be special cases and not generally available to an ordinary borrower.
I'm not sure you'd find any rates lower than that 4% elsewhere in antiquity. Evidence that I'm aware of for the ancient Near East and Greece points to much higher interest rates than prevailed in Rome. On the other end of things, even that most aggressively Christian of emperors, Justinian, set higher limits in his anti-usury measures.
Cool! Glad to know the person who made that infographic did the necessary homework!
I would not be surprised to find out that the ownership of the Sterling Firm ultimately traces back to Trump himself.And it seems Tiny Donnie may well have broken the law by having his campaign purchase over $55,000 worth if his book from Barnes & Nobel's (because buying them from the publisher directly, which is more the norm doesn't count for the NYT Best Seller list). If he received royalties for those copies he's broken the law.The alleged billionaire's campaign is also soliciting foreign nationals for campaign donations.
His campaign might also be making illegal tax-free payments to campaign staff... twice.
His campaign has paid for the services of the Draper Sterling firm. Someone created a legal entity with the name of a firm from Mad Men. The Trump campaign has paid them about $35,000, and another super-PAC has paid them $56,000. For what? No one knows (or at least no public information is available).
I forget where I saw this, but from what I remember it traced back to a longtime buddy of his but not to Trump directly.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Also, it's not like Bill and Hillary are taking money out of the Foundation.
...
The Daily Kos“It seems like the Clinton Foundation operates as a slush fund for the Clintons,” said Bill Allison, a senior fellow at the Sunlight Foundation, a government watchdog group once run by leading progressive Democrat and Fordham Law professor Zephyr Teachout. …
The Clinton family’s mega-charity took in more than $140 million in grants and pledges in 2013 but spent just $9 million on direct aid. …"
More here:Between 2009 and 2012, the Clinton Foundation raised over $500 million dollars according to a review of IRS documents by The Federalist (2012, 2011, 2010, 2009, 2008). A measly 15 percent of that, or $75 million, went towards programmatic grants. More than $25 million went to fund travel expenses. Nearly $110 million went toward employee salaries and benefits. And a whopping $290 million during that period — nearly 60 percent of all money raised — was classified merely as “other expenses.”
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I like this article tearing apart the AP
The State Department is a big operation. So is the Clinton Foundation. The AP put a lot of work into this project. And it couldn’t come up with anything that looks worse than helping a Nobel Prize winner, raising money to finance AIDS education, and doing an introduction for the chair of the Kennedy Center. It’s kind of surprising.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Also, it's not like Bill and Hillary are taking money out of the Foundation.
...The Daily Kos“It seems like the Clinton Foundation operates as a slush fund for the Clintons,” said Bill Allison, a senior fellow at the Sunlight Foundation, a government watchdog group once run by leading progressive Democrat and Fordham Law professor Zephyr Teachout. …
The Clinton family’s mega-charity took in more than $140 million in grants and pledges in 2013 but spent just $9 million on direct aid. …"
More here:Between 2009 and 2012, the Clinton Foundation raised over $500 million dollars according to a review of IRS documents by The Federalist (2012, 2011, 2010, 2009, 2008). A measly 15 percent of that, or $75 million, went towards programmatic grants. More than $25 million went to fund travel expenses. Nearly $110 million went toward employee salaries and benefits. And a whopping $290 million during that period — nearly 60 percent of all money raised — was classified merely as “other expenses.”
Your second source also posts articles by "Tyler Durden".
Edit: I'm sorry... your source ONLY posts articles by "Tyler Durden".
I stopped clicking links in "Tyler Durden's" articles after the first two didn't lead to specific information, but were just home pages of the "sources".
Poking around briefly, I didn't find any articles that came to the same conclusion or had the same information that didn't reference Zero Hedge as their primary source for several different articles. None linked back to any actual information and were typically on sites with questionable credibility themselves.
Some non-Saudi Arabia deals:
For Hillary Clinton and Boeing, a beneficial relationship
Interesting. Apparently, Boeing made a(nother?) $900,000 donation after Hillary pressed Russia into signing a multi-billion dollar deal with them.
I'd have to doublecheck my timelines, but I think these Boeing deals are all going down while they were setting up operations in South Carolina to bust the union, but I guess that's neither here nor there.
Don't know about this website, but you can google around if it's ideologically unacceptable:
CLINTON CASH — THE GE-ALGERIA CONNECTION
Anyway, as I said above, it doesn't make much difference to me if it's a question of personal venality or realpolitik. Personally, I think it's more about networking, access-peddling and influencing policy ("She's great at making deals!" I believe is one of the constant refrains of her supporters).*
Nothing out of line with that, right? Must take some squinting to see something wrong in all that mess. As I had occasion to mention regarding the Wall Street speeches, I don't think she's any more monstrous than your average power-hungry capitalist stooge, just more successful. And, I guess, if you're a supporter of international capitalism, as most of you are, or supporters of American imperialism, no matter how begruding or reluctantly, as most of you are, you probably don't see anything wrong with hobnobbing with union-busters and facilitating deals between the captains of western capitalism and blood-soaked feudal monarchies and dictatorships.
I mean, even Carter did it, right? That's the way the system works.
And then Dicey wonders why I don't vote.
----
*Although I have seen articles about the Foundation taking care of Clinton friends and family--Anthony Rodham and the Haitian gold mines, anyone?
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Clinton is amazing.
Just think about it: She somehow hides billions in "dark money" using an organization NAMED THE CLINTON FOUNDATION, while managing to hob-knob with the lefty-elite, arm the Saudis, AND still be one of the most prolific serial killers in U.S. history.
President? Screw that. Someone that effective should just take over the world (a feat she is no doubt pursuing at this very moment!).
Some non-Saudi Arabia deals:
For Hillary Clinton and Boeing, a beneficial relationship
Interesting. Apparently, Boeing made a(nother?) $900,000 donation after Hillary pressed Russia into signing a multi-billion dollar deal with them.
I'd have to doublecheck my timelines, but I think these Boeing deals are all going down while they were setting up operations in South Carolina to bust the union, but I guess that's neither here nor there.
Don't know about this website, but you can google around if it's ideologically unacceptable:
CLINTON CASH — THE GE-ALGERIA CONNECTION
Anyway, as I said above, it doesn't make much difference to me if it's a question of personal venality or realpolitik. Personally, I think it's more about networking, access-peddling and influencing policy ("She's great at making deals!" I believe is one of the constant refrains of her supporters).*
Nothing out of line with that, right? Must take some squinting to see something wrong in all that mess. As I had occasion to mention regarding the Wall Street speeches, I don't think she's any more monstrous than your average power-hungry capitalist stooge, just more successful. And, I guess, if you're a supporter of international capitalism, as most of you are, or supporters of American imperialism, no matter how begruding or reluctantly, as most of you are, you probably don't see anything wrong with hobnobbing with union-busters and facilitating deals between the captains of western capitalism and blood-soaked feudal monarchies and dictatorships.
I mean, even Carter did it, right? That's the way the system works.
And then Dicey wonders why I don't vote.
In other news: System which encourages, if not outright requires, corruption produces...corruption.
Your indignation makes sense if your goal is to overthrow the system -- which I gather yours is -- but make no mistake: Clinton isn't the problem; she's a symptom.
*Reads some of the links and sighs*
You know... I still don't like Clinton very much. She really does tend to feel artificial, like most things she does are scripted, but... the fact that they've found no smoking gun after all of this means she's either the greatest criminal mastermind in history or there really isn't anything there. One of these is more plausible than the other. I don't think I'm going to feel sour about voting for her in November anymore.
...
Probably gonna vote down-ballot Democrat on the national level, too. *Grimaces* I feel like the Republicans would be even more obstructionist if they kept a majority in Congress, and that would probably do far more harm than anything Clinton's planning to do. I want legislators to cooperate, not act like the other side is evil incarnate and get more stubborn the more they fail.
President? Screw that. Someone that effective should just take over the world (a feat she is no doubt pursuing at this very moment!).
But i don't want to have to learn to speak lizard.
I spit when i make the TSSSS sound.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
Also, it's not like Bill and Hillary are taking money out of the Foundation.
...The Daily Kos“It seems like the Clinton Foundation operates as a slush fund for the Clintons,” said Bill Allison, a senior fellow at the Sunlight Foundation, a government watchdog group once run by leading progressive Democrat and Fordham Law professor Zephyr Teachout. …
The Clinton family’s mega-charity took in more than $140 million in grants and pledges in 2013 but spent just $9 million on direct aid. …"
More here:Between 2009 and 2012, the Clinton Foundation raised over $500 million dollars according to a review of IRS documents by The Federalist (2012, 2011, 2010, 2009, 2008). A measly 15 percent of that, or $75 million, went towards programmatic grants. More than $25 million went to fund travel expenses. Nearly $110 million went toward employee salaries and benefits. And a whopping $290 million during that period — nearly 60 percent of all money raised — was classified merely as “other expenses.”
So, Fergie, what you just posted is a combination of a lie and misinformation. We need to have a chat about that. Ignoring, for the moment, how terrible your source (and yes, there is only one source between those two links) is, anyone who tells you that the remaining $290 million of their 2009-2012 fundraising was simply classified as "other expenses" is either lying to you or has been lied to themselves. The Clinton Foundation's tax returns are available to the public on their website. They outline the organization's finances, including expenditures, as well as provide information on programs in which the organization is involved. Unlike the vast majority of charities, the Clinton Foundation spends most of its program money on its own programs. They run a number of enormous initiatives themselves, instead of writing the majority of their fundraising out as grants.
You are being manipulated because you a) do not have the level of knowledge of non-profit work required to know when someone is lying to you, and b) have a personal, emotional interest in these stories being true, which causes you to skip over the critical thought with which you might otherwise treat dubious claims like these.
Again, you are being manipulated, and are contributing to a culture of disinformation.
Please stop. You know better.