4 ms·

Great to see partisan political commentary on HN. There is no proof of quid pro quo in that Russia uranium deal: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statem

Great to see partisan political commentary on HN. There is no proof of quid pro quo in that Russia uranium deal: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/jun/30/donald-trump/donald-trump-inaccurately-suggests-clinton-got-pai/ http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/jun/... Also, Clinton sold a lot more than 3000 copies that first week; more like 85000 (still not as good as her prior best sellers): http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/06/18/what-do-hillary-s-so-so-book-sales-portend-for-a-clinton-candidacy.html http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/06/18/what-do-hil...

tootie 10y ago
She's also going to be selling copies for the next 10 years.
sidlls 10y ago
Quoting Politifact isn't a rebuttal. Also, "quid pro quo" as used by politicians who peddle their influence is basically unprovable. It's a great standard for them to make mainstream, but unfortunately fails to accurately describe all the ways influence peddling and bribery schemes work.
tomohawk 10y ago
You're confused. It's less than 3000. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/15/us/politics/clinton-book-stronger-together.html http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/15/us/politics/clinton-book-s... The larger number is for the disappointing sales of her previous book. Nothing partisan about my comments. I'm not promoting any party. Just pointing out the sleaze.
- parasubvert 10y ago
  Yes, I completely admit I had no idea she had a new book out this week. I'm assuming I'm not alone ><
  - tomohawk 10y ago
    No problem. There's more important stuff to keep up with.
jeffdavis 10y ago
So you are sayibg the original article that is basically saying "high speaking fees are normal, Clinton is normal, don't worry about it" is non-partisan; but providing a counter-argument that seems to show a conflict of interest is partisan? It doesn't work that way.
- parasubvert 10y ago
  The original article is non-partisan in its argument, the high speaking fees being normal applies equally to all parties, all famous people. The OP I was responding to could be seen as making a non-partisan argument, however the focus was on Clinton rather than Trump and Clinton. So I interpreted is as partisan (and got a fact wrong about her new book). Tomahawk has responded since that it was not intended as partisan, and I'll take his/her word for it.

tootie 10y ago

She's also going to be selling copies for the next 10 years.

sidlls 10y ago

Quoting Politifact isn't a rebuttal. Also, "quid pro quo" as used by politicians who peddle their influence is basically unprovable. It's a great standard for them to make mainstream, but unfortunately fails to accurately describe all the ways influence peddling and bribery schemes work.

tomohawk 10y ago

You're confused. It's less than 3000. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/15/us/politics/clinton-book-stronger-together.html http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/15/us/politics/clinton-book-s... The larger number is for the disappointing sales of her previous book. Nothing partisan about my comments. I'm not promoting any party. Just pointing out the sleaze.

parasubvert 10y ago
Yes, I completely admit I had no idea she had a new book out this week. I'm assuming I'm not alone ><
- tomohawk 10y ago
  No problem. There's more important stuff to keep up with.

jeffdavis 10y ago

So you are sayibg the original article that is basically saying "high speaking fees are normal, Clinton is normal, don't worry about it" is non-partisan; but providing a counter-argument that seems to show a conflict of interest is partisan? It doesn't work that way.

parasubvert 10y ago
The original article is non-partisan in its argument, the high speaking fees being normal applies equally to all parties, all famous people. The OP I was responding to could be seen as making a non-partisan argument, however the focus was on Clinton rather than Trump and Clinton. So I interpreted is as partisan (and got a fact wrong about her new book). Tomahawk has responded since that it was not intended as partisan, and I'll take his/her word for it.