“clinton cash” reactions

[debbietoo]

Background: Many have pointed out the numerous instances of misinformation in “Clinton Cash.” Pundits and members of the media have concluded the book offers a series of discredited and disproved attacks, made to invite increased media scrutiny into the Clinton Foundation.

Author Peter Schweizer has a major credibility problem and has relied on false sourcing to incorrectly correlate his conspiracy theories, as ThinkProgress uncovered.


The New Yorker reported that “Schweizer doesn’t back up his suggestions of wrongdoing with much in the way [of] concrete evidence.”


As Yahoo News reports, there is “no smoking gun” and the book only “marshals circumstantial evidence” to suggest connections between foreign donations to the Foundation and actions of the State Department.


The book’s “suggestion of outside influence over U.S. decision making” with regards to accusations made by the author “is based on little evidence,” as reported in Time.


The books publisher even notes that “Schweizer does not allege illegal or unethical behavior.”
These reactions by pundits and the media only reinforce that “Clinton Cash” is just another instance of a right-wing extremist author and the media trying in vain to find correlation where there is none, in order to smear the Clintons.
REACTION TO “CLINTON CASH”

“Schweizer does not allege illegal or unethical behavior ….”
–HarperCollins’s publishing blurb (http://pr.harpercollins.com/books/Clinton-Cash-Unabridged/?isbn=9780062406378) for “Clinton Cash”
NO CONCRETE EVIDENCE

The Hill: “Even Schweizer admits he has no smoking gun proving that either Hillary Clinton or former President Bill Clinton sought to further the interests of donors to the Clinton Foundation in improper ways.” “With the controversy around donations to her family’s charitable foundation growing, Democrats are bracing for more attacks on the former secretary of State — just the beginning of what they expect to be an 18-month assault on their party’s front-runner. […] Those attacks for now revolve around the upcoming book Clinton Cash by Peter Schweizer of the conservative Hoover Institution at Stanford University. Even Schweizer admits he has no smoking gun proving that either Hillary Clinton or former President Bill Clinton sought to further the interests of donors to the Clinton Foundation in improper ways.” [The Hill, 4/28/15 (http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/240257-gops-open-season-on-hillary-clinton)]
Source:

http://correctrecord.org/clinton-cash-reactions/

Come on Donald, why don't you show your tax returns and also show us where your donations come from! We want to see what YOU ARE HIDING. By the way, what have you done for charity???

[Tahuyaman]

There are a lot of Clinton apologists and bootlickers out there.

[Peter1469]

Damage control.

The fans could care less.

[Tahuyaman]

Damage control.

The fans could care less.


They could, but they won't. It might be impossible.

[Subdermal]

This must mean that internal polling is showing some damage.

Good.

[AZ Jim]

Damage control.

The fans could care less.Peter, if you insist in using the phrase, at the very least get it right. It's "fans COULDN'T care less". Otherwise it means they care more. 6th grade English 101.

[Captain Obvious]

There are a lot of Clinton apologists and bootlickers out there.

Yup

Two way door also

[texan]

Damage control.

The fans could care less.

Seriously, why are they fans of those people? They are so dysfunctional, morally corrupt, and dishonest why are they so liked by democrats. They have many people to choose from, Tim Kaine for example is a good dude, but choose these people like they re entitled! T Kaine has even criticized these people are morally bankrupt in the past...

[Truth Detector]

There are a lot of Clinton apologists and bootlickers out there.

...and at the top of the list; see above! ;)

[Tahuyaman]

Peter, if you insist in using the phrase, at the very least get it right. It's "fans COULDN'T care less". Otherwise it means they care more. 6th grade English 101.

"6th grade English 101" huh?

Leave it to @AZ Jim (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=1901) to start chirping and make a fool of himself.

[Tahuyaman]

...and at the top of the list; see above! ;)


Which one? There are so many.

[AZ Jim]

"6th grade English 101" huh?

Leave it to @AZ Jim (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=1901) to start chirping and make a fool of himself.A Fool has been identified and it is YOU.

[Tahuyaman]

A Fool has been identified and it is YOU.


Holy shit! ^^^^^ is out there.

[AZ Jim]

Holy shit! ^^^^^ is out there.Do I need to tell you what most here know?

[MisterVeritis]

Background: Many have pointed out the numerous instances of misinformation in “Clinton Cash.” Pundits and members of the media have concluded the book offers a series of discredited and disproved attacks, made to invite increased media scrutiny into the Clinton Foundation.

Author Peter Schweizer has a major credibility problem and has relied on false sourcing to incorrectly correlate his conspiracy theories, as ThinkProgress uncovered.


The New Yorker reported that “Schweizer doesn’t back up his suggestions of wrongdoing with much in the way [of] concrete evidence.”


As Yahoo News reports, there is “no smoking gun” and the book only “marshals circumstantial evidence” to suggest connections between foreign donations to the Foundation and actions of the State Department.


The book’s “suggestion of outside influence over U.S. decision making” with regards to accusations made by the author “is based on little evidence,” as reported in Time.


The books publisher even notes that “Schweizer does not allege illegal or unethical behavior.”
These reactions by pundits and the media only reinforce that “Clinton Cash” is just another instance of a right-wing extremist author and the media trying in vain to find correlation where there is none, in order to smear the Clintons.
REACTION TO “CLINTON CASH”

“Schweizer does not allege illegal or unethical behavior ….”
–HarperCollins’s publishing blurb (http://pr.harpercollins.com/books/Clinton-Cash-Unabridged/?isbn=9780062406378) for “Clinton Cash”
NO CONCRETE EVIDENCE

The Hill: “Even Schweizer admits he has no smoking gun proving that either Hillary Clinton or former President Bill Clinton sought to further the interests of donors to the Clinton Foundation in improper ways.” “With the controversy around donations to her family’s charitable foundation growing, Democrats are bracing for more attacks on the former secretary of State — just the beginning of what they expect to be an 18-month assault on their party’s front-runner. […] Those attacks for now revolve around the upcoming book Clinton Cash by Peter Schweizer of the conservative Hoover Institution at Stanford University. Even Schweizer admits he has no smoking gun proving that either Hillary Clinton or former President Bill Clinton sought to further the interests of donors to the Clinton Foundation in improper ways.” [The Hill, 4/28/15 (http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/240257-gops-open-season-on-hillary-clinton)]
Source:

http://correctrecord.org/clinton-cash-reactions/

Come on Donald, why don't you show your tax returns and also show us where your donations come from! We want to see what YOU ARE HIDING. By the way, what have you done for charity???


That was the. Now we have some of Clinton and the Crime Family Foundation emails. The author connected the dots. And he was largely right.

Do you plan to have any original thoughts or will you continue to provide this clipping service?

[Subdermal]

A Fool has been identified and it is YOU.

I think he's laughing that you took 'English 101' in 6th grade.

:biglaugh:

[MisterVeritis]

Peter, if you insist in using the phrase, at the very least get it right. It's "fans COULDN'T care less". Otherwise it means they care more. 6th grade English 101.
This is your finest post.

[AZ Jim]

I think he's laughing that you took 'English 101' in 6th grade.

:biglaugh:Well, I would think it obvious the 101 part was in jest. The thrust of my comment to Pete was his misuse of the phrase. I have told him about it before. It just grates on my nerves to hear people misuse it. It is a situation I could have just let go, and probably should have. Ignorance is bliss.

[Peter1469]

Well, I would think it obvious the 101 part was in jest. The thrust of my comment to Pete was his misuse of the phrase. I have told him about it before. It just grates on my nerves to hear people misuse it. It is a situation I could have just let go, and probably should have. Ignorance is bliss.

In the early 1990s, the well-known Harvard professor and language writer Stephen Pinker argued that the way most people say could care less—the way they emphasize the words—implies they are being ironic or sarcastic.

[MisterVeritis]

In the early 1990s, the well-known Harvard professor and language writer Stephen Pinker argued that the way most people say could care less—the way they emphasize the words—implies they are being ironic or sarcastic.
Peter, the way you use it is wrong. I assumed it was a blind spot.

[debbietoo]

"6th grade English 101" huh?

Leave it to @AZ Jim (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=1901) to start chirping and make a fool of himself.

Be sure not to call the kettle black.

[AZ Jim]

In the early 1990s, the well-known Harvard professor and language writer Stephen Pinker argued that the way most people say could care less—the way they emphasize the words—implies they are being ironic or sarcastic.Well it is a famous mistake made all the time.
http://learnersdictionary.com/qa/I-COULDN-T-care-less-or-I-COULD-care-less

[Tahuyaman]

I think he's laughing that you took 'English 101' in 6th grade.

:biglaugh:

Why did you go and do that?

[Tahuyaman]

Be sure not to call the kettle black.

I usually don't use that saying.

[Peter1469]

Well it is a famous mistake made all the time.
http://learnersdictionary.com/qa/I-COULDN-T-care-less-or-I-COULD-care-less

Schools in America were much better in the early 1900s.

[debbietoo]

That was the. Now we have some of Clinton and the Crime Family Foundation emails. The author connected the dots. And he was largely right.

Do you plan to have any original thoughts or will you continue to provide this clipping service?

I intend to keep providing the "clipping service". Here is another one.

Report: Trump has refused to pay hundreds of workers

The report found hundreds of liens, judgments and at least 60 lawsuits against Trump and his businesses alleging that he has not fully paid workers for their labor and in some instances refused to pay commissions for his own lawyers and real estate brokers. Since 2005, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee’s businesses have also racked up 24 violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act for not paying employees minimum wage or overtime pay.
The report found a tendency for Trump's businesses to engage in lengthy legal battles over relatively small dollar figures, often making settlements that require confidentiality from the plaintiffs.
Source:

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/282933-report-trump-has-refused-to-pay-hundreds-of-workers

With this kind of reputation, how do you think he will treat middle class working America?

[AZ Jim]

Schools in America were much better in the early 1900s.I know. I started in 1941.

[debbietoo]

I know. I started in 1941.

Lol! I should have met you then.:smiley:

[AZ Jim]

Lol! I should have met you then.:smiley:Deb, you hadn't been invented yet in 1941..

[MisterVeritis]

I intend to keep providing the "clipping service". Here is another one.

Report: Trump has refused to pay hundreds of workers

The report found hundreds of liens, judgments and at least 60 lawsuits against Trump and his businesses alleging that he has not fully paid workers for their labor and in some instances refused to pay commissions for his own lawyers and real estate brokers. Since 2005, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee’s businesses have also racked up 24 violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act for not paying employees minimum wage or overtime pay.
The report found a tendency for Trump's businesses to engage in lengthy legal battles over relatively small dollar figures, often making settlements that require confidentiality from the plaintiffs.
Source:

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/282933-report-trump-has-refused-to-pay-hundreds-of-workers

With this kind of reputation, how do you think he will treat middle class working America?
Lawsuits are not unusual, are they? I wonder what the percentage of lawsuits to the total number of contracts is?

[zelmo1234]

I intend to keep providing the "clipping service". Here is another one.

Report: Trump has refused to pay hundreds of workers

The report found hundreds of liens, judgments and at least 60 lawsuits against Trump and his businesses alleging that he has not fully paid workers for their labor and in some instances refused to pay commissions for his own lawyers and real estate brokers. Since 2005, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee’s businesses have also racked up 24 violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act for not paying employees minimum wage or overtime pay.
The report found a tendency for Trump's businesses to engage in lengthy legal battles over relatively small dollar figures, often making settlements that require confidentiality from the plaintiffs.
Source:

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/282933-report-trump-has-refused-to-pay-hundreds-of-workers

With this kind of reputation, how do you think he will treat middle class working America?

Why is all of this True when Trump is accused and you don't post any of the Facts that go with it,

But all accusations against Clinton are False?

That seems to be a double standard.

[zelmo1234]

I can Promise you that we will be sued by the irrigation company that we just fired. I sent them a Check of all of the equipment that they installed incorrectly and a copy of the invoice of the company that did the job right.

They will still want their labor. They will sue us hoping that we will not fight it. But like Trump we fight every law suit. and I have only lost one! And that was because I was not aware that one of my Supers OK'ed the change. Once that piece of evidence came out, I stopped the proceedings paid for the contract plus all legal fees and interest. and went back to the office and Fired the Super.

It happens all the time in the construction industry.

[debbietoo]

Deb, you hadn't been invented yet in 1941..

Graduated high school in 1973!

[debbietoo]

Why is all of this True when Trump is accused and you don't post any of the Facts that go with it,

But all accusations against Clinton are False?

That seems to be a double standard.

Why don't you post the facts behind "Clinton Cash" that prove those allegations? She has shown her tax returns, Donald Trump has not. She has been investigated by the FBI and has been cleared.

[Bethere]

I think he's laughing that you took 'English 101' in 6th grade.

:biglaugh:

I think he is laughing because you took english 101 as a second language.

[zelmo1234]

Why don't you post the facts behind "Clinton Cash" that prove those allegations? She has shown her tax returns, Donald Trump has not. She has been investigated by the FBI and has been cleared.

What do you think that you would get out of Trumps Tax Return?

He has stated that he will post them as soon as the Audit is completed. I will hold him to that.

As far as the Clinton Cash, there is no evidence connecting Hillary and Bill to it. But don't you find it a little interesting that with in a few days to sometimes hours after countries received a positive ruling by the State Department, or Access to Mrs. Clinton. The Clinton Foundation Received a very large donation, and Bill booked a speech at about 5 times his going rate?

Like I was saying you all assume that all of the accusations against Trump are Real? But when it comes to Hillary? There is nothing to see

[zelmo1234]

Why don't you post the facts behind "Clinton Cash" that prove those allegations? She has shown her tax returns, Donald Trump has not. She has been investigated by the FBI and has been cleared.

The investigation into the Clinton Foundation is ongoing.

No Tax attorney would stand for the public disclosure of a return that is under audit

[Bethere]

Schools in America were much better in the early 1900s.

http://www.ajeforum.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/vickellychart.jpg

[Bethere]

The investigation into the Clinton Foundation is ongoing.

No Tax attorney would stand for the public disclosure of a return that is under audit

False. Romney was being audited when he released his return in 2012.

[zelmo1234]

False. Romney was being audited when he released his return in 2012.

Do you have a link to that? not saying that you are wrong but I don't remember that

[Bethere]

Do you have a link to that? not saying that you are wrong but I don't remember that

Nah. I'd give it to you and then Chris and Pete would come in and say that it was false, or demean me by calling me a fan.

So ask them. They are the experts.

[zelmo1234]

Nah. I'd give it to you and then chris and pete would come in and say that it was false, or demean me by calling me a fan.

So ask them. They are the experts.

I don't care what they think, and as far as I know? you are right.

I just don't remember that being part of his reasoning?

[Bethere]

I don't care what they think, and as far as I know? you are right.

I just don't remember that being part of his reasoning?

I am unwilling to risk my tenuous status on this forum to fulfill your request.

Sorry about that.

[Tahuyaman]

Why don't you post the facts behind "Clinton Cash" that prove those allegations? She has shown her tax returns, Donald Trump has not. She has been investigated by the FBI and has been cleared.

For crying out loud, she's not going to list the illegally gained wealth on her tax statements.

[donttread]

Background: Many have pointed out the numerous instances of misinformation in “Clinton Cash.” Pundits and members of the media have concluded the book offers a series of discredited and disproved attacks, made to invite increased media scrutiny into the Clinton Foundation.

Author Peter Schweizer has a major credibility problem and has relied on false sourcing to incorrectly correlate his conspiracy theories, as ThinkProgress uncovered.


The New Yorker reported that “Schweizer doesn’t back up his suggestions of wrongdoing with much in the way [of] concrete evidence.”


As Yahoo News reports, there is “no smoking gun” and the book only “marshals circumstantial evidence” to suggest connections between foreign donations to the Foundation and actions of the State Department.


The book’s “suggestion of outside influence over U.S. decision making” with regards to accusations made by the author “is based on little evidence,” as reported in Time.


The books publisher even notes that “Schweizer does not allege illegal or unethical behavior.”
These reactions by pundits and the media only reinforce that “Clinton Cash” is just another instance of a right-wing extremist author and the media trying in vain to find correlation where there is none, in order to smear the Clintons.
REACTION TO “CLINTON CASH”

“Schweizer does not allege illegal or unethical behavior ….”
–HarperCollins’s publishing blurb (http://pr.harpercollins.com/books/Clinton-Cash-Unabridged/?isbn=9780062406378) for “Clinton Cash”
NO CONCRETE EVIDENCE

The Hill: “Even Schweizer admits he has no smoking gun proving that either Hillary Clinton or former President Bill Clinton sought to further the interests of donors to the Clinton Foundation in improper ways.” “With the controversy around donations to her family’s charitable foundation growing, Democrats are bracing for more attacks on the former secretary of State — just the beginning of what they expect to be an 18-month assault on their party’s front-runner. […] Those attacks for now revolve around the upcoming book Clinton Cash by Peter Schweizer of the conservative Hoover Institution at Stanford University. Even Schweizer admits he has no smoking gun proving that either Hillary Clinton or former President Bill Clinton sought to further the interests of donors to the Clinton Foundation in improper ways.” [The Hill, 4/28/15 (http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/240257-gops-open-season-on-hillary-clinton)]
Source:

http://correctrecord.org/clinton-cash-reactions/

Come on Donald, why don't you show your tax returns and also show us where your donations come from! We want to see what YOU ARE HIDING. By the way, what have you done for charity???



Are you saying the Clinton Foundation has not accepted foreign cash?

[Bethere]

Are you saying the Clinton Foundation has not accepted foreign cash?

Even the author admits there is nothing illegal here.

Your desperate party is finished. This was all you had?

[Subdermal]

Nah. I'd give it to you and then Chris and Pete would come in and say that it was false, or demean me by calling me a fan.

So ask them. They are the experts.


I am unwilling to risk my tenuous status on this forum to fulfill your request.

Sorry about that.


Your desperate party is finished. This was all you had?

:biglaugh:

[zelmo1234]

I am unwilling to risk my tenuous status on this forum to fulfill your request.

Sorry about that.

I could not find the information to support your statement either. Good choice.

An Honest person might admit that they were wrong.

[MisterVeritis]

Why don't you post the facts behind "Clinton Cash" that prove those allegations? She has shown her tax returns, Donald Trump has not. She has been investigated by the FBI and has been cleared.
Tax returns are not relevant. The FBI did not clear Mrs BJ Clinton. They did not charge her. Corrupt and Cowardly Comey failed the nation. If Lyin' Hidin' Hillary did nothing wrong why are the emails heavily redacted? They are heavily redacted because Lyin' Hidin' Hillary exposed classified information to all of our enemies (and friends) on her unauthorized email server.

The FBI is corrupt. Once Trump is President that and most Executive Branch agencies are going to need a thorough scrubbing.

[zelmo1234]

Even the author admits there is nothing illegal here.

Your desperate party is finished. This was all you had?

You are correct, it is just Funny how Thankful these nations were after a favorable ruling by the state department.

Some of them paying Slick Willie a million dollars for a 30 min speech when his going rate had dropped to about 200K for a full day event.

Follow that with massive donations into the Clinton Foundation which we all know the Clintons are using to cover many if not most of their personnel expenses, and there is reason to believe that somewhere in those 33 thousand deleted emails there might be a smoking gun.

[debbietoo]

I can Promise you that we will be sued by the irrigation company that we just fired. I sent them a Check of all of the equipment that they installed incorrectly and a copy of the invoice of the company that did the job right.

They will still want their labor. They will sue us hoping that we will not fight it. But like Trump we fight every law suit. and I have only lost one! And that was because I was not aware that one of my Supers OK'ed the change. Once that piece of evidence came out, I stopped the proceedings paid for the contract plus all legal fees and interest. and went back to the office and Fired the Super.

It happens all the time in the construction industry.

How much are your legal fees???

[zelmo1234]

How much are your legal fees???

About 150 to 200 K per year, but that is all contracts plus support.

When we know that we are building or Remodeling for Liberals we have to get every change order notarized and written as a legal contract because they are so dishonest. that is the vast majority of it.

It is also why we charge Liberals more to do the work. It just cost more to do it.

[debbietoo]

About 150 to 200 K per year, but that is all contracts plus support.

When we know that we are building or Remodeling for Liberals we have to get every change order notarized and written as a legal contract because they are so dishonest. that is the vast majority of it.

It is also why we charge Liberals more to do the work. It just cost more to do it.

I'm sorry you feel you have to categorize all democrats as dishonest. I also feel bad for you that your legal expenses are that high. Perhaps you should consider going to law school yourself in order to cut expenses.

I just found an interesting article on the internet which some on this forum may find interesting.

How the AP Spun the Story About the Clinton Foundation
The Associated Press (http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_CAMPAIGN_2016_CLINTON_FOUNDATION?SITE=AP) has just shown us why it is important to be vigilant in how we consume the news as it is reported. They took some interesting information they gathered and spun it into something it wasn’t…scandalous. Here is their lead-in introduction:


More than half the people outside the government who met with Hillary Clinton while she was secretary of state gave money – either personally or through companies or groups – to the Clinton Foundation. It’s an extraordinary proportion indicating her possible ethics challenges if elected president.At least 85 of 154 people from private interests who met or had phone conversations scheduled with Clinton while she led the State Department donated to her family charity or pledged commitments to its international programs, according to a review of State Department calendars released so far to The Associated Press. Combined, the 85 donors contributed as much as $156 million. At least 40 donated more than $100,000 each, and 20 gave more than $1 million.Chris Cillizza (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/08/23/now-hillary-has-a-big-clinton-foundation-problem-too/) is an example of a pundit who ran with it. In reference to that intro, he writes this:


It is literally impossible to look at those two paragraphs and not raise your eyebrows. Half of all of the nongovernmental people Clinton either met with or spoke to on the phone during her four years at the State Department were donors to the Clinton Foundation! HALF.And those 85 people donated $156 million, which, according to my calculator, breaks down to an average contribution just north of $1.8 million. (Yes, I know that not everyone gave the same amount.)It just plain looks bad. Really bad.

Source:

http://washingtonmonthly.com/2016/08/24/how-the-ap-spun-the-story-about-the-clinton-foundation/

On another note, Clinton is giving a speech, according to CNN, this Thursday, to counter numerous attacks from the Trump campaign.

[zelmo1234]

I'm sorry you feel you have to categorize all democrats as dishonest. I also feel bad for you that your legal expenses are that high. Perhaps you should consider going to law school yourself in order to cut expenses.

I just found an interesting article on the internet which some on this forum may find interesting.

How the AP Spun the Story About the Clinton Foundation


The Associated Press (http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_CAMPAIGN_2016_CLINTON_FOUNDATION?SITE=AP) has just shown us why it is important to be vigilant in how we consume the news as it is reported. They took some interesting information they gathered and spun it into something it wasn’t…scandalous. Here is their lead-in introduction:

More than half the people outside the government who met with Hillary Clinton while she was secretary of state gave money – either personally or through companies or groups – to the Clinton Foundation. It’s an extraordinary proportion indicating her possible ethics challenges if elected president.At least 85 of 154 people from private interests who met or had phone conversations scheduled with Clinton while she led the State Department donated to her family charity or pledged commitments to its international programs, according to a review of State Department calendars released so far to The Associated Press. Combined, the 85 donors contributed as much as $156 million. At least 40 donated more than $100,000 each, and 20 gave more than $1 million.

Chris Cillizza (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/08/23/now-hillary-has-a-big-clinton-foundation-problem-too/) is an example of a pundit who ran with it. In reference to that intro, he writes this:

It is literally impossible to look at those two paragraphs and not raise your eyebrows. Half of all of the nongovernmental people Clinton either met with or spoke to on the phone during her four years at the State Department were donors to the Clinton Foundation! HALF.And those 85 people donated $156 million, which, according to my calculator, breaks down to an average contribution just north of $1.8 million. (Yes, I know that not everyone gave the same amount.)It just plain looks bad. Really bad.

Source:

http://washingtonmonthly.com/2016/08/24/how-the-ap-spun-the-story-about-the-clinton-foundation/

On another note, Clinton is giving a speech, according to CNN, this Thursday, to counter numerous attacks from the Trump campaign.




It is just who they are. They don't view it as dishonest, but they will change and if you don't have it in writing they will Sue you to make you change it back at your expense, We charge about 7% more, if we know that the buyers are liberal democrats and that covers all of the legal fees.

Please understand that they are not bad people, they just believe that Business should pay for their mistakes. So we have them sign every Change order and get it notarized. They Still sue us, but it is a short hearing.

And I have no interest in being a lawyer. It does not interest me, and I am not interested in taking the pay cut.