It was a Fox News twofer today as the Curvy Couch Crew suggested that labor union donations to the Clinton Foundation, while Hillary Clinton served as secretary of State, represented some kind of quid pro quo. Actual evidence for such a conclusion was glaringly absent.
“Listen to this!” Cohost Elisabeth Hasselbeck said excitedly. “A new cash controversy for Hillary Clinton as new information reveals the Clinton Foundation received $2 million in donations from labor unions! Some, while she was still secretary of State!”
There appeared to have been no effort by the “fair and balanced” network to find out why the unions donated to the foundation.
Instead, cohost Steve Doocy sneered, “Labor unions!” as if the very term represented something evil. He continued, “Hillary maintains that none of these donations influenced her decisions but has she given us any reason to believe that?”
Fox Business’ Trish Regan was on hand to answer the question – without adding a single fact about the matter.
REGAN: No surprise there, right? Well, unions are political organizations, let’s face it, right? And the problem, really, nowadays is that they’re takin’ money out of their workers’ pockets and they’re putting it to work in campaigns or for foundations like the Clinton Foundation, and workers have no say in any of this.
Regan paused to bash President Obama for making the National Labor Relations Board stronger. “It’s made it harder and harder and harder for these workers that don’t want unions in their shop to kick ‘em out,” she complained.
Still not a single piece of evidence to support the allegation that any of Clinton's decisions were based on a union donation.
But Doocy made sure to insinuate otherwise. With blatant sarcasm, he said, “Well, obviously, when they (unions) get the money in, though, they give the money equally to Democrats and Republicans, right?”
Regan went along. “Yeah, yeah, yeah, right, right, right, yeah. Not quite that way.”
Then she claimed – still without any actual evidence - that Clinton had been bribed.
REGAN: The problem here is that you have union leaders deciding where they want the money to go, so they’re effectively out there handpicking candidates – generally, liberal candidates – whom they believe are gonna then reinforce their position. So it is for sure a quid pro quo. They expect these leaders, these politicians, like Hillary Clinton, to do what they want in exchange for that money.
In other words, Regan had no actual proof beyond her own belief.
But, she wasn’t through laying down her anti-union thoughts.
REGAN: I think a lot of workers increasingly are realizing that there is no place for unions in today’s economy. Now, there might have been back in the 1800s early 1900s. You could argue that labor conditions were so severe that unions actually made a difference. Today, it’s not the case.
Cohost Brian Kilmeade made it four out of four with the same opinion. “Let the markets control it,” he said.
Crossposted at News Hounds.
We watch Fox so you don't have to!