‘It looks like bribery’? Actually, it doesn't ( Mitt Romney )

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/it-looks-bribery-actually-it-doesnt?cid=sm_fb_maddow



Commenting yesterday on the New York Times article on the Clinton Foundation’s international donors, Romney said, “I was stunned by it. I mean, it looks like bribery.” The Republican added there is “every appearance” that the former Secretary of State “was bribed.”

--- snip---

The problem, of course, is that the relevant details don’t support the thesis. On the contrary, the facts seem to disprove the charge quite clearly. Hillary Clinton had nothing to do with the review of the Uranium One deal, and nine separte U.S. agencies – the Treasury Department, the Justice Department, the Commerce Department, et al – were involved in the process, not just State.

It’s entirely possible some the Clinton Foundation’s donors hoped to curry favor with Hillary Clinton, but there’s literally no evidence at all that she ever lifted a finger to help the Canadian mining company or any other entity that ever contributed a dime.

Indeed, in this case, the timing doesn't even make sense – the Canadian company donated to the Clinton Foundation in early 2008. Hillary Clinton didn’t become Secretary of State until a year later.

NBC News added this morning, “Upon reflection, that Times article doesn’t hold up that well 24 hours after its publication.”

One of the more striking things about the media’s reaction to the allegations yesterday is the way in which the factual details weren’t considered determinative. Much of the analysis I saw yesterday included phrases like, “The facts may be on Clinton’s side, but…” or “The substance of Clinton’s defense is entirely accurate, but…”

This is then followed by some discussion about “narratives” and “perceptions,” unrelated to what actually happened in this case, which doesn’t appear to be controversial at all.
----------------

more at link