From SK POP:
Apple TV+'s The Big Conn, a four-part docuseries, is set to explore the shocking real-life tale of Eric C. Conn. ...
Apple TV+ will release all four episodes together - May 6 at 3.00 am, Eastern Time (ET). In conjunction with the series, Apple will also release an exclusive companion podcast that will go into further depth into Conn's deception and his extravagant lifestyle, including new interviews and behind-the-scenes insights. ...
My understanding is that this documentary will also focus on the real pain left behind for Conn's former clients who have ended up being harshly punished for Conn's misdeeds even though they did nothing wrong.
6 comments:
Episodes 1-2 focus on Conn and his shenanigans. Episodes 3-4 focus on his victims, his former clients.
The doc definitely sticks it to the agency over stopping all his clients' benefits, but it's completely silent as to upper mgmt's knowledge/involvement/etc. of what was going on in Huntington and only vaguely mentions how nothing happened for so long after the WSJ article, Senate subcommittee hearings, etc. Too bad.
I thought that SSA should have relooked at all the Initial assessment s and determined who they thought were likely disabled, possibly disabled, questionable, or highly questionable. The first two should have been given the benefit of the doubt and continued on disability until a re-evaluation could be made. The questionable and highly questionable should have been re-evaluated as soon as possible. To simply throw out all those approvals was irresponsible. Also, why were only Conn's claimants treated this way? Duagherty had a 95% approval rate. Clearly, he was THE PROBLEM. A bribe scheme only works if someone is demanding/accepting the bribe. Why is accepting bribes seen as the lesser crime?
Episodes 3 and 4 paint a devastating picture of how the SSA has tormented the thousands of totally innocent former Conn clients. Not in the documentary was the SSA continuing losing streak as the Conn clients have prevailed in every federal court. Ned Pillersdorf
It also touches on the extent to which SSA officials tried to stonewall the investigation at the outset -- why? Because for SSA, it was (and still is) production production production. The Huntington office was doing it for them, and officials wanted to keep that going as long as possible - "pay down the backlog" was ok until it wasn't.
Conn was a bad actor, no doubt. However, who was it that came up with this whole scheme? Who was it that covered it all up? Who was it that retaliated against the whistle blowers? Sadly, the answer to each of these is "someone who works for SSA."
Conn was a clown and it's good that he's been taken care of. However, all of this happened because of corruption at SSA.
Post a Comment