Salon Series — The Clinton BS Files: In the ’90s, right wingers claimed Hillary and Bill framed...

[DonViejo]

Salon Series — The Clinton BS Files: In the ’90s, right wingers claimed Hillary and Bill framed a rapist

Clinton paranoia led Mike Huckabee to release convicted rapist Wayne DuMond, and DuMond went on to kill two women

AMANDA MARCOTTE

Welcome to the first in a new series we’re calling the The Clinton BS Files. Bill and Hillary Clinton have been plagued by conspiracy theories throughout most of their life in the public eye, perhaps more than any other politicians in history. This is a weekly in-depth look at the stories behind some of these conspiracy theories.


A lurid right-wing conspiracy theory about the Clintons took off in Arkansas in the ’90s. Unfortunately, this particular conspiracy theory led to death: Two women were raped and murdered in the early 2000s, crimes that would likely not have happened but for the right-wing noise machine churning out Clinton conspiracy theories.

From the get-go, the case of Wayne DuMond, of Arkansas, was a strange one. In the mid-80s, DuMond was convicted of raping a teenager named Ashley Stevens in Forrest City, Arkansas. Shortly thereafter, as Gene Lyons of the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette recalled in a 2007 retrospective, DuMond became “the Arkansas celebrity inmate of the 1990s.”

From Lyons history:

First, somebody castrated him while he was free on bond awaiting trial. (Local investigators said they suspected drunken self-mutilation, not unknown among sex offenders.) Worse, the local sheriff exhibited DuMond’s testicles in a jar of formaldehyde, an Arkansas-gothic stunt triggering rumors of vigilante justice.

Second, DuMond’s victim, who’d recognized her attacker on the street weeks after the crime, was a distant cousin of Clinton. That excited the kinds of conspiracy nuts who circulated Clinton “death lists.” They portrayed DuMond as a victim of the Clinton machine’s satanic wrath. His innocence became an article of faith on the fruitcake right.

more
http://www.salon.com/2016/08/15/salon-series-the-clinton-bs-files-in-the-90s-right-wingers-claimed-hillary-and-bill-framed-a-rapist/

[displacedtexan]

1. I hope they cover the fact that NAFTA was signed before Bill took office.

I'm sick and tired of people who know nothing about it repeating the VRWC lies.

[rufus dog]

4. Clinton signed NAFTA

No ducking that one.

[Florencenj2point0]

5. What you should know about NAFTA...... the lefties are wrong

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Free_Trade_Agreement

NAFTA has two supplements: the North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation (NAAEC) and the North American Agreement on Labor Cooperation (NAALC).

...
Following diplomatic negotiations dating back to 1990 among the three nations, U.S. President George H. W. Bush, Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney and Mexican President Carlos Salinas, each responsible for spearheading and promoting the agreement, ceremonially signed the agreement in their respective capitals on December 17, 1992.[5] The signed agreement then needed to be ratified by each nation's legislative or parliamentary branch.

The Canada–United States Free Trade Agreement had been very controversial and divisive in Canada, and the 1988 Canadian election was fought almost exclusively on that issue. In that election, more Canadians voted for anti-free trade parties (the Liberals and the New Democrats) but the split caused more seats in parliament to be won by the pro-free trade Progressive Conservatives (PCs). Mulroney and the PCs had a parliamentary majority and were easily able to pass the 1987 Canada-U.S. FTA and NAFTA bills. However, he was replaced as Conservative leader and prime minister by Kim Campbell. Campbell led the PC party into the 1993 election where they were decimated by the Liberal Party under Jean Chrétien, who had campaigned on a promise to renegotiate or abrogate NAFTA; however, Chrétien subsequently negotiated two supplemental agreements with the new U.S. president. In the U.S., Bush, who had worked to "fast track" the signing prior to the end of his term, ran out of time and had to pass the required ratification and signing of the implementation law to incoming president Bill Clinton. Prior to sending it to the United States Senate Clinton added two side agreements, The North American Agreement on Labor Cooperation (NAALC) and the North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation (NAAEC), to protect workers and the environment, plus allay the concerns of many House members. It also required U.S. partners to adhere to environmental practices and regulations similar to its own.[citation needed]

After much consideration and emotional discussion, the House of Representatives passed the North American Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act on November 17, 1993, 234-200. The agreement's supporters included 132 Republicans and 102 Democrats. The bill passed the Senate on November 20, 1993, 61-38.[6] Senate supporters were 34 Republicans and 27 Democrats. Clinton signed it into law on December 8, 1993; the agreement went into effect on January 1, 1994.[7][8] Clinton, while signing the NAFTA bill, stated that "NAFTA means jobs. American jobs, and good-paying American jobs. If I didn't believe that, I wouldn't support this agreement."[9]

...
Provisions
The goal of NAFTA was to eliminate barriers to trade and investment between the U.S., Canada and Mexico. The implementation of NAFTA on January 1, 1994 brought the immediate elimination of tariffs on more than one-half of Mexico's exports to the U.S. and more than one-third of U.S. exports to Mexico. Within 10 years of the implementation of the agreement, all U.S.-Mexico tariffs would be eliminated except for some U.S. agricultural exports to Mexico that were to be phased out within 15 years.[10] Most U.S.-Canada trade was already duty-free. NAFTA also sought to eliminate non-tariff trade barriers and to protect the intellectual property rights on traded products.
...

Intellectual Property
The North American Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act made some changes to the copyright law of the United States, foreshadowing the Uruguay Round Agreements Act of 1994 by restoring copyright (within the NAFTA nations) on certain motion pictures which had entered the public domain.[12][13]

Environment
Securing U.S. congressional approval for NAFTA would have been impossible without addressing public concerns about NAFTA’s environmental impact.[14] The Clinton administration negotiated a side agreement on the environment with Canada and Mexico, the North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation (NAAEC), which led to the creation of the Commission for Environmental Cooperation (CEC) in 1994. To alleviate concerns that NAFTA, the first regional trade agreement between a developing country and two developed countries, would have negative environmental impacts, the CEC was given a mandate to conduct ongoing ex post environmental assessment of NAFTA.[15]

...

Transportation infrastructure
NAFTA established the CANAMEX Corridor for road transport between Canada and Mexico, also proposed for use by rail, pipeline, and fiber optic telecommunications infrastructure. This became a High Priority Corridor under the U.S. Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991.

...Impact


A 2007 study found that NAFTA has "almost zero welfare impact on member and nonmember countries".[23] A 2015 study found that Canada's welfare decreased by 0.06% as a result of the NAFTA tariff reductions, and that Canada's intra-bloc trade increased by 11%.[24]
...

NAFTA has also been credited with the rise of the Mexican middle class. A Tufts University study found that NAFTA lowered the average cost of basic necessities in Mexico by up to 50%.[33] This price reduction has increased cash-on-hand for many Mexican families, allowing Mexico to graduate more engineers than Germany each year.[34]

United States
In a survey of leading economists, 95% supported the notion that on average, US citizens benefited on NAFTA.[35] A 2001 Journal of Economic Perspectives review found that NAFTA was a net benefit to the United States.[29] A 2015 study found that US welfare increased by 0.08% as a result of the NAFTA tariff reductions, and that US intra-bloc trade increased by 41%.[24]

In 2015, the Congressional Research Service concluded that the "net overall effect of NAFTA on the U.S. economy appears to have been relatively modest, primarily because trade with Canada and Mexico accounts for a small percentage of U.S. GDP. However, there were worker and firm adjustment costs as the three countries adjusted to more open trade and investment among their economies."[36]

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce credits NAFTA with increasing U.S. trade in goods and services with Canada and Mexico from $337 billion in 1993 to $1.2 trillion in 2011, while the AFL-CIO blames the agreement for sending 700,000 American manufacturing jobs to Mexico over that time.[37]

...
Jobs
Many American small businesses depend on exporting their products to Canada or Mexico under NAFTA. According to the U.S. Trade Representative, this trade supports over 140,000 small and medium-sized businesses in the US. [2]

Environment
For more details on this topic, see NAFTA's Impact on the Environment.
Overall, none of the initial hypotheses were confirmed.[citation needed] NAFTA did not inherently present a systemic threat to the North American environment, as was originally feared. NAFTA-related environmental threats instead occurred in specific areas where government environmental policy, infrastructure, or mechanisms were unprepared for the increasing scale of production under trade liberalization.[citation needed] In some cases, environmental policy was neglected in the wake of trade liberalization; in other cases, NAFTA's measures for investment protection, such as Chapter 11, and measures against non-tariff trade barriers threatened to discourage more vigorous environmental policy.[41] The most serious overall increases in pollution due to NAFTA were found in the base metals sector, the Mexican petroleum sector, and the transportation equipment sector in the United States and Mexico, but not in Canada.[42]

Mobility of persons
According to the Department of Homeland Security Yearbook of Immigration Statistics, during fiscal year 2006 (i.e., October 2005 through September 2006), 73,880 foreign professionals (64,633 Canadians and 9,247 Mexicans) were admitted into the United States for temporary employment under NAFTA (i.e., in the TN status). Additionally, 17,321 of their family members (13,136 Canadians, 2,904 Mexicans, as well as a number of third-country nationals married to Canadians and Mexicans) entered the U.S. in the treaty national's dependent (TD) status.[43] Because DHS counts the number of the new I-94 arrival records filled at the border, and the TN-1 admission is valid for three years, the number of non-immigrants in TN status present in the U.S. at the end of the fiscal year is approximately equal to the number of admissions during the year. (A discrepancy may be caused by some TN entrants leaving the country or changing status before their three-year admission period has expired, while other immigrants admitted earlier may change their status to TN or TD, or extend TN status granted earlier).

Canadian authorities estimated that, as of December 1, 2006, a total of 24,830 U.S. citizens and 15,219 Mexican citizens were present in Canada as "foreign workers". These numbers include both entrants under the NAFTA agreement and those who have entered under other provisions of the Canadian immigration law.[44] New entries of foreign workers in 2006 were 16,841 (U.S. citizens) and 13,933 (Mexicans).[45]

So NAFTA was more of less a done deal by the time Clinton was sworn in. It only had to be ratified and signed. He could have refused to sign it but that would have been a waste of political capital before he got started.
Overall it was not the disaster the far left would like to pretend. There was both good and bad outcomes. One of the reasons jobs are coming back to the US is that when you open up trade workers wages go up with the countries you trade with.
When Clinton signed it was with the agreement that the additions to the bill be kept in , environmental and worker protections.

[displacedtexan]

6. Bush signed NAFTA Dec. 17, 1992. Here's a link to the video...

http://abcnews.go.com/Archives/video/dec-17-1992-pres-bush-signs-nafta-15205420

[bluestateguy]

2. Wayne DuMond? Isn't he that rapist who had his balls flushed down the toilet by the county sheriff?

nt

[fun n serious]

3. It's about money...

There is money to be made off of a Clinton scandal so they get made up...