The Non-Sexual Trafficking and Exploitation of Children by the Fanjul family (Big political donors, particularly to the Clintons) (pizzagatejournalism)

submitted ago by JrSlimss

There is strong evidence that human trafficking - both for the purpose of sex and labor - uses similar channels. I think it is worth investigating the Fanjul family in the Dominican Republic, as they are noted human traffickers (including children) and modern-day slaveowners. They use Haitian slaves on their Dominican Republic sugar plantations and are close friends and huge donors to the Clintons and Marco Rubio.

While there are a few documentaries on the Fanjuls' crimes, the documentary that faced the most adversity seeing the light of day was called "Sugar Babies" which focused specifically on the plantation's use of child labor.

The IMDB page: http://archive.is/mlTed

Here is an article about the adversity from the Associated Press (via the Tampa Bay Times): http://archive.is/4jUX4

Here is an article with the director, Amy Serrano: http://pizzagate.wiki/File:Amy_Serrano_Camera_Obscura_161.pdf

The "Sugar Babies" documentary is unavailable, but documentaries focused on the exploitation of slaves on the plantations as a whole are available. Here is one by the CBC:

Part 1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PHh5odELpi4

Part 2: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nlAqt1UiQP4

As billionaires, the Fanjuls are smart enough to play both sides politically with each brother handling candidates from one of the two major political parties.

Here is a Vanity Fair article focusing on Bill Clinton's very close relationship with the Fanjul brothers (who also have plantations in Florida). The article begins with a quote from the Starr Report (in the Monica Lewinsky scandal): http://archive.is/th5rN#selection-461.0-465.17

The President told her he no longer felt right about their intimate relationship, and had to put a stop to it.… At one point during their conversation the President had a call from a sugar grower in Florida whose name, according to Ms. Lewinsky, was something like “Fanuli.” In Ms. Lewinsky’s recollection, the President may have taken or returned the call just as she was leaving.

As for Marco Rubio, Rubio even thanked them in his autobiography. http://archive.is/qmscT#selection-2515.323-2515.537

This info comes from the Pizzagate.Wiki: http://pizzagate.wiki/Fanjul_family

anonOpenPress ago

Hi, your post is a good example of the need of fact-checking, and as we're in the beginning here I'm putting some extra effort on this one - It might turn up as useful for future posts here. The above requires a lot of fact checking before any claims entering our sticky, so great that you posted it here first. To start with, let's list the claims from above:

  • Sex and labor trafficking uses similar channels
  • Fanjul family is a noted human trafficker, including children
  • Fanjul family uses Haitian slaves on their Dom.Reb sugar plantation
  • Fanjul family is friends with the Clintons and Marco Rubio
  • Fanjul family is donor to the Clintons and Marco Rubio
  • "Sugar Babies" focused on the plantation's use of child labor
  • documentaries focused on the exploitation of slaves on the plantations as a whole are available
  • One document by CBC focuses on the exploitation of slaves
  • Fanjuls are smart enough to play both sides politically (based on opinion they being billionaires, not a reliable source)
  • Fanjul brothers handle candidates from both two major political parties
  • Fanjul brothers have plantations in Florida
  • Rubio thanked Clintons in his autobiography

Each claim related to our topics needs a source. Most of the above claims seems easy to fact check.

  • Most used source here was Vanity Fair writer Marie Brenner http://www.vanityfair.com/contributor/marie-brenner who's reliability must be checked closely, as her article didn't link to other sources. Also the reputation of Vanity Fair might play a role in this fact checking.
  • Also Bloomberg's Zachary Mider Wiki is used as a source for one claim, which is without a source in his article (He did use source links otherwise). Claim on autobiography seems like an easy fact check, as the autobiography itself is probabaly available, possible other claims based on the Bloomberg article must be, of course, checked separately.
  • Pizzagate wiki is not a reliable source itself, but any linked sources there could be checked for reliability

An interesting claim in the Bloomberg article I run into was mentioning of "Domino", which has turned up as a term in different meanings during pizzagate investigations every now and then:

"With his brother Alfonso, Fanjul runs one of the biggest sugar companies in the country, with brands like Domino and Florida Crystals. "

Well, here's some starters for yours and other helpful members job on this. Ms. Brenner's reliability seems to play the key role, so maybe someone begins with finding out about her journalistic career. I'm happy to help if anyone have any questions.

JrSlimss ago

You seem to have a journalist background, which is awesome. Can you provide an article with how you would do this? Illustrating to start is much more useful than correcting afterwards.

anonOpenPress ago

Fact checking is quite case sensitive, so there are no step-by-step guides fitting every single article/source. On privilege sources (like a person) it takes some time too. But do your best and I'll help you on the way. Start by using search engines for that name Marie Brenner and find if she has won any prizes, received any critics or applauces (reputation) and what kind of topics she's focused on (expertice). Read some of her other articles to form your own opinion of her reliability. If you find yourself wondering can she be trusted, just forget her. But if not, go on:

How are her connections, is she biased (leaning to left or right). This isn't important in defining reliability on herself, but it becomes important if she leaves some facts out of the articles because of that, or otherwise pushes either side in her edits. Quite a lot of journalists do. This isn't a sign of unreliability, but it signals importance of find the opinion of the other side too.

The best of luck, keep asking whenever needed.

JrSlimss ago

The reason I asked was because you seem to want a format that matches what might be given to an editor versus what would go to an end-reader. I have never seen what a document looks like when submitted to an editor or clearance specialist, so a sample would be great.

In response to your comments, here are the changes or responses.

  • Sex and labor trafficking uses similar channels (changed to "methodology" and citation added)

  • Fanjul family is a noted human trafficker, including children (See documentary as citation)

  • Fanjul family uses Haitian slaves on their Dom.Reb sugar plantation (See documentary as citation)

  • Fanjul family is friends with the Clintons and Marco Rubio (See lower section)

  • Fanjul family is donor to the Clintons and Marco Rubio (See lower section)

  • "Sugar Babies" focused on the plantation's use of child labor (See links provided)

  • documentaries focused on the exploitation of slaves on the plantations as a whole are available (link was provided)

  • One document by CBC focuses on the exploitation of slaves (link was provided)

  • Fanjuls are smart enough to play both sides politically (based on opinion they being billionaires, not a reliable source) (language revised and citation added)

  • Fanjul brothers handle candidates from both two major political parties (noted in articles, but additional citation added)

  • Fanjul brothers have plantations in Florida (noted in articles, but additional citation added)

  • Rubio thanked Clintons in his autobiography (misinterpreted and language was revised)

anonOpenPress ago

A format to editor has a list of facts, the actual beef (final article is a hamburger) and the point of view explained. Sometimes some kind of shortie, but not necessary if the editor already knows the writer and her/his style.

The first format in fact checking has a list of facts, list of claims, a list of opinions and a list of sources. Agencies might have varying formats, though.

Back to the topic, the list is fine and as there are several sources so it should be easy to check. Pick one important claim. Check it's source, and decide if you trust that.

ps. The Tampa Bay article, seemingly using AP directly as the source (without name of the writer, so it's probably a copy of the AP article) should be a reliable source. I don't think they lie about their source, and AP is well trusted among journalists.