Hillary Clinton lies about Free Trade

Politics & Elections
1

On the eve of the South Carolina democratic primary, the State Department released 1500 pages of Hillary Clinton’s emails, and there were some damning facts in there. The International Business Times reports the following:

During her 2008 presidential run, Clinton said she opposed the Columbian free trade deal because “I am very concerned about the history of violence against trade unionists in Columbia”. She later declared “I opposed the deal, I have spoken out against the deal, I will vote against the deal, and I will do everything I can to urge the Congress to reject the Columbia free agreement.”

But newly released emails show as Secretary of State, Clinton was personally lobbying Democratic members of Congress to support the deal. Even promising one senior lawmaker that the deal would extend labor protections to Colombian workers that would be as good or better than those enjoyed by many workers in the United States.
In another email, a former Vice Chairman of Goldman Sachs who subsequently was hired by Clinton in the State Department (no conflict of interest here!) later chimed in “Terrific job” and “Great line on Columbian workers!”

Skip forward to 10:55 in the following video to see Hillary’s lies about Free Trade: - YouTube

I’ve included a transcript of that segment of the video, if anyone prefers to see it in writing:

It was one of the highlights of President Bill Clinton’s first term: passage of the North American Free Trade Agreement, also known as NAFTA. Critics blamed NAFTA for the loss of manufacturing jobs in states including Ohio and Pennsylvania. Hillary Clinton helped get NAFTA approved. She held at least 5 meetings to strategize about how to win Congressional approval; she helped the white house block opposition from labor and environmental groups; and she was the featured speaker at a crucial meeting. Participants in that meeting said “…her remarks were totally pro-NAFTA…” (November 10, 1993 NAFTA meeting, source ABC News, March 19)

That’s not what Hillary Clinton said later.

“You know, I have been a critic of NAFTA from the very beginning. […] I didn’t have a public position on it. […] And if you look at what I have been saying, it has been consistent.”

“My concerns about NAFTA, expressed years ago, have been well documented and verified. […] I have spoken consistently against NAFTA.”

“I was one of the voices in the Administration warning about NAFTA.”

video now shows a much younger looking Hillary from the past:

“Oh I think that everyone is in favor of free and fair trade, and I think that NAFTA is proving its worth…”

“I think, on balance, NAFTA has been good for New York and America.” (Senator Clinton in News Teleconference, January 5, 2004)

2

Has Clinton ever lied? Sure. If you’re expecting to shock people with that revelation, you’re a few decades late to the party.

Clinton has a big advantage though. She doesn’t have to tell the truth. She has to tell fewer lies than Trump.

3

Oh, no!

She changed her mind and/or supported her boss’s agenda! Whatsoever is America to do?

The Republic cannot stand if actions like this are left unchallenged! I demand a House Investigation immediately!

4

The Secretary of State doesn’t set the administration’s agenda, they work to implement it.

5

Congressional aide: “Please take a number. Line starts on the left.”

6

And when that does not work, ANOTHER ONE! And another!

I predict 8 years of obstruction, refusal of hearings for the supreme court, investigations, special prosecutors, more obstruction, threats to default on the US debt, threats, and even more obstruction.

If we’re LUCKY, we won’t have even more nutbars like Bundy and clowns trying to take over federal buildings.

7

Therefore, characterizing that as a lie is inaccurate. It would be good form to retract such a claim.
As for NAFTA, it was a complicated trade agreement. So it’s unsurprising and reasonable for a commentator or politician to speak for and against it. Hell, I’ve probably done that on this message board. NAFTA was negotiated by Bush and passed during Clinton’s first year in office. In 1996, Hillary basically endorsed it. In 1998, Hillary Clinton stated, “Having said that, I would add that there does need to be sensitivity to worker and environmental concerns in trade agreements going forward in the future. Certainly if they are going to be agreements that are negotiated with the United States government and require the consent of the United States Congress.” In 2000 she said, “What happened to NAFTA, I think, was we inherited an agreement that we didn’t get everything we should have got out of it in my opinion. I think the NAFTA agreement was flawed. The problem is we have to go back and figure out how we are going to fix that.” That actually doesn’t conflict with the 1996 comment, “I think everybody is in favor of free and fair trade. I think NAFTA is proving its worth.” It just doesn’t. This is a multi-thousand word treaty we’re discussing. It would be fatuous to characterize it in black or white terms. Or to retain a fixed view of it forever and ever.
Timeline of Hillary Clinton’s views on free trade: A Timeline Of Hillary Clinton's Evolution On Trade : It's All Politics : NPR

A fuller timeline would note that support for pro-growth policies like NAFTA were paired with worker protection initiatives such as health care reform. Most Republicans supported the former. All Republicans opposed health care reform, then and now.

8

My God…the blinders have been lifted from my eyes…I’m going to vote for Trump!

(/extreme sarcasm)

9

Has the OP indicated he supports Trump anywhere on this forum? I don’t see why criticism of Hillary Clinton automatically equates to support for Trump when such a person could just as easily be supporting Johnson, Stein, or someone else or staying home or even (like myself) giving “critical support” to Clinton, acknowledging her flaws even when agreeing she is the best candidate currently in the ring.

10

The OP is clearly not offering “critical support” for Clinton. It’s just typical Republican bullshit quibbling like they’ve been throwing at the Clintons for decades.

It’s possible, of course, that he’s a fan of the third party candidates, but he never mentions them and he’s playing the Republican’s tired old tune, so you know … walks like it, quacks like it.

11

A lot of us that are voting for her already know what sort of person she is and we can’t really hold our noses any tighter while we pull the lever. If McCain circa 2000 or Romney were running this year, it might even make a difference. But, that’s not the hand we have been dealt.

12

Neither of those are actively campaigning against Clinton. And how is it “critical support” if it’s being manufactured?

13

In all fairness, we excoriate Trump, and rightly so!, for just these kinds of contradictions.

There is a tendency in political discourse to minimize the flaws of one’s choice of candidate. That’s fair enough and I certainly agree that not all flaws are created equal. In this election, Trump’s deep flaws completely overshadow any wrong doing that Clinton can be fairly criticized of having done.

Let’s face it, if we had a better Democratic candidate to choose from, Hillary would have lost the nomination, again. This doesn’t make her a bad candidate. Not in the least. I thinks she’s highly competent and experienced. I will sleep just fine at night knowing she is serving as POTUS. However, to dismiss criticism of her by claiming that there is no perfect candidate is to dismiss the fact that she has fundamental flaws.

14

Third party supporters are so rare they may be safely neglected. They never have and never will be statistically significant. If I make the assumption that an anti-Hillary person supports Trump, I’ll be correct in nearly every instance.

15

The difference between the two is simple: As the Secretary of State, her job is to promote (and, yes, help shape) Obama’s agenda. If Obama decides he wants to do something that Hillary the Candidate opposed, Hillary the Secretary of State has to support it.

16

Exactly, and Obama has shown himself to be a very pro-free trade Democrat (he may be one of the most free trade politicians we have in American politics today).

17

The upshot IMHO is that Hillary Clinton is held to a higher standard of behavior/speech than any other person in public life

Politics IS all about quid pro quo–that’s how it works. Give and take, compromise, horse-trading, deal-making-- call it what you like. That’s how it **has **to work to work. It’s not categorically bad and is only seen that way by the naive and inexperienced.

18

I disagree. The difference is that if pressed and given time to reply, Hillary could state why she held one position and why she changed that position. With Trump it’s “We’ve always been at war with Oceania” or silence, and with silence a number of supporters will accept he means one thing, while others will accept he means another, the other statement having been a white lie to gain support from the idiots.

19

Fair point.

Is that true though? In 2008, she was up against Obama and both were held to the same standard (I believe). He was the preferred candidate then. This time around, she is the nominee with a significant new feather in her cap (SoS), and even among her supporters there is a feeling of dis-ease with respect to her character. I refer to her throwing her own staffers and Colin Powell under the bus with respect to the email server story. It’s as if she continues to try to shift blame elsewhere despite having already admitted to having made the wrong decision. I can’t help but think there’s something there there - something other than her being held to a higher standard.

20

Seven House investigations! At least!