Hillary Clinton's lies and scandals

[Bridget_Burke]

@Eugene_of_Sandwich

Hillary For Prison 2016.

It’s time we clean up the mess in DC. And that includes everybody.

On what charges?

[Moriarty]

@ITR_champion

Indeed. But there’s such a thing as intelligent guesses. When rivers of money flow towards a politician, and then the politician does things or promises to do things friendly to the sources of those money, people are bound to be suspicious. They are bound to guess that it’s not a coincidence, and that the donors are donating in hope of getting something in return…
In response, you and other Hillary defenders say there’s no solid evidence of Hillary doing anything wrong. That sounds a lot like the stereotypical corrupt politician on The Simpsons yelling “No way you can’t prove nothin’!”

For that matter, whenever the topic of money influencing in politics in general is mentioned, most Democrats seem to take the influence for granted. If corporations and trade groups are donating enormous sums, then of course they are expecting to get something in return. The only question is, why would we expect there to be a special exception solely for the case of Hillary Clinton?

This is what I meant in the OP when I said that “politics is dirty”. Politics is dirty because politicians need money to get elected, and it is legal in this country for politicians to sell access.

So, yes, Hillary Clinton is knee deep in money from big corporate donors.

And, yes, that makes Hillary Clinton just as sleezy as any other politician.

But that’s the point; she’s not beset by scandals or lies or corruption. She’s about on par with the stereotypical politician lampooned on the Simpsosn.

Unless you can show a quid pro quo for those large donations you cited, you are assuming facts not in evidence to conclude that the Clinton Foundation’s operations are evidence of corruption.

[control-z]

I think Republicans, and many Americans in general, disliked her long before she ran for president. Her anti-gun stance and Hillarycare charts and graphs as first lady contributed to that. I don’t remember a similar dislike for other first ladies. Michelle Obama, while she isn’t a favorite of many Republicans, has a 66% approval rating. Hillary had a 56% approval rating during Bill’s time in office which isn’t terrible, but is by far the lowest of the last 4 first ladies. Source: Gallup. So she just isn’t that well-liked.

[JohnT]

Exactly, Moriarty. Looking at this site: http://www.opensecrets.org/parties/index.php?cmte=&cycle=2000 , I’m not really seeing what Hillary is doing that isn’t par for the course in Washington.

In the year 2000 alone, the Republicans raised $1.4 billion for their races, the Dems raised $959 million. Against such a backdrop, how is Hillary more corrupt for raising $200,000 from The National Retail Federation than any other politician who raised the same amount from the same group?

It’s bizarre that one was chosen by ITR as evidence of how groups bought the Clintons - the NRF donates far greater sums to Repubs than to Dems… but, apparently, it’s only the $200k that is raised by HRC that’s corrupt (out of $400k in Democrat donations total over 24 years), not the $2 million given to Repubs in the same time frame. :rolleyes:

Again, accusations without evidence, just thrown out there with no context. Good job, ITR.

[Moriarty]

@control-z

I think Republicans, and many Americans in general, disliked her long before she ran for president. Her anti-gun stance and Hillarycare charts and graphs as first lady contributed to that. I don’t remember a similar dislike for other first ladies. Michelle Obama, while she isn’t a favorite of many Republicans, has a 66% approval rating. Hillary had a 56% approval rating during Bill’s time in office which isn’t terrible, but is by far the lowest of the last 4 first ladies. Source: Gallup. So she just isn’t that well-liked.

She’s not a political superstar.

I do think that she isn’t very good at running for President, in that she isn’t good at wooing a crowd or giving a fiery speech. (Having said that, I did see a commercial once featuring a video where she was consoling a little girl in a room, so I do think she can be compassionate and probably is good one on one).

I know I am projecting, but I think after being picked apart for 3 decades, she is so afraid of being misinterpreted or misquoted that she can’t just give a straight answer to a question (Obama is similar, in my opinion: his often halting speech, which grates on me, is because of a conscience effort to be precise).

And her efforts at being more of a politician than a traditional First Lady was likely off-putting to some people, and made worse by her politically gifted husband, who makes love to his audience like few can.

But none of that rises to the level to justify thinking that she is crooked or dishonest or can’t be trusted.

In fact, from what I can glean, she is well prepared to handle the job of President from day 1: being careful with your words is important when a flippant remark can effect financial markets or worldwide security; she has decades of experience dealing with the “sausage making” of legislation; and she has a wealth of experience (some of it, knowledge of “what NOT to do”) to deal with any unexpected crisis or challenge (which, ultimately, is the most important part of a President’s job).

[Bone]

@CarnalK

I always found this complaint a little amusing. I mean technically, we elect representatives not rulers, but somebody who follows the polls is considered bad. Like somebody who changes their stance depending on what the people want is a moral coward. It’s funny what people decide to cling to as important for a good dep

Following polls is undesirable because you want some element of predicatbility when new circumstances arise. If I know a person’s principles are X, then I know whey Y situation they will behave in a certain way. If however they have no principles, then there is no way to predict how they will behave. That’s bad. When times change I’d rather vote for a new person instead of having the same person reinvent themselves.

This is probably the instance of equivocation that stands out most to me. During the 2008 campaign when there was fake controversy about Obama’s religion, this was from an interview:

“You said you’d take Senator Obama at his word that he’s not…a Muslim. You don’t believe that he’s…,” Kroft said.
“No. No, there is nothing to base that on. As far as I know,” she said.

(my bold)
Not, He’s not a Muslim and even if he were there is nothing wrong with that. No, instead she says, I believe him, as far as I know. That’s just total BS.

In any case, in most of the criticism of Clinton here on this board, I hardly see any mention of her anti 1st amendment positionthat she took with regard to violent video games. That alone was a deal breaker for me.

“We need to treat violent video games the way we treat tobacco, alcohol, and pornography,” Clinton said while promoting the Family Entertainment Protection Act, legislation that would have criminalized the sale of games rated “Mature” or “Adults Only” to minors. “If you put it just really simply, these violent video games are stealing the innocence of our children – and it is certainly making the job of being a parent even more difficult,” she said.

If she believed this, then she was wrong - and if she didn’t, then she was pandering. Both are bad. Now that gaming is more mainstream, not a peep. That’s not a principled position.

[Czarcasm]

Bone, who is the principled politician you are voting for?

[guizot]

@Nonsuch

People claim they want politicians to talk to them like adults and not dumb things down or blow smoke up their asses; the reality, as always, is rather different.

The American voting public is by and large a bunch of uninformed, simple-minded, dufuses weaned on TV commercials and TV dinners, who love to complain about politicians, but don’t know what it takes to make government work, and always take it for granted that government will be there for them when they personally need it.

Every goddamn election they say the exact same things (“They’re all corrupt; they’re all liars; throw them all out,” etc.), but then along comes a shiny new squirrel like lying Donald Trump–who dumbs things down and blows smoke up their asses–and they eat it up.

They prefer to have smoke blown up their ass–it’s like “reality” television. When someone comes around who actually knows what to do, they think it’s boring.

[Razncain]

@John_Mace

… Ask yourself why liberals/Democrats don’t like her. They don’t like her because she seems to need to look at polling data before she can answer any question or stake out any position.

Exactly the thing Anderson Cooper called her out on. Hillary lying for 12 minutes straight.

[El_Kabong]

@Bridget_Burke

On what charges?

Based on the content of much of this thread, aggravated running for office.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@CarnalK

I always found this complaint a little amusing. I mean technically, we elect representatives not rulers, but somebody who follows the polls is considered bad. Like somebody who changes their stance depending on what the people want is a moral coward. It’s funny what people decide to cling to as important for a good dep

Its not that we thin that people who test the wind will be too compliant with the will of the public. Its that we think they are just telling us what we want to hear. They have no core principles that we are voting for, that the product may not perform as advertised.

I think a lot of Liberals think that Hillary will continue to help the rich and powerful stay that way.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@Voyager

You think she invented expensive fundraisers? As for Goldman Sachs, you guys need to find the right bartenders. You think Romney was going to release what he said? Somehow I doubt she said you guys are the greatest ever, and preaching to the sinners, not the choir, is sometimes a good idea.

You think she was paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to tell Goldman Sachs how their greed fucked up the global economy?

[Czarcasm]

@Damuri_Ajashi

Its not that we thin that people who test the wind will be too compliant with the will of the public. Its that we think they are just telling us what we want to hear. They have no core principles that we are voting for, that the product may not perform as advertised.

I think a lot of Liberals think that Hillary will continue to help the rich and powerful stay that way.

Thank you ever much for the constant reminders as to what we think. I don’t know what we would do if it weren’t for conservatives telling us what we think about things-ghod knows we libruls have absolutely no idea what our own opinions are about anything. :rolleyes:
Here’s a thought: Why don’t you stick with giving your own opinions about Clinton, and let the opinions Liberals have about her come straight from the mouths of maybe…Liberals?

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@Starving_Artist

I don’t know what she got hammered on during their days in Arkansas, but when I first began to notice her alienating people was when she made some remark about not staying at home, baking cookies and standing by her man (paraphrased).

I agree that there is a sense that she doesn’t respect housewives. There is a general sense that she doesn’t really respect a lot of people.

Plus she has an incredibly smug face, demeanor and way of speaking, and that put a lot of people off.

I think that is where people get the notion that she is contemptuous of people that don’t have ivy league pedigrees or a lot of money.

But I am not aware of any objective facts that support this.

Then the biggie: she tried to take over the nation’s health care under the auspices of being married to the president. People really resented that.

Meh. Every President can choose their own advisors. I don’t see why she is any less qualified than any of Clinton’s other advisors.

Then there’s the feeling that she knew and didn’t care about her husband’s philandering, and then attempted to blame Bill’s alleged (and ultimately proven) contretemps over Monica Lewinsky on a ‘vast right-wing conspiracy’ to bring down her husband.

I agree that she didn’t seem to care as long as Bill kept winning elections and was discreet.

And then there’s the constant chicanery and stonewalling that went on in the White House every time an investigation was attempted on the two of them, with evidence mysteriously disappearing only to be discovered later in their living quarters, etc., etc., etc. The impression has been that the two of them are crooked as hell, but being lawyers, devious enough to know what they can get away with without being arrested.

Here I disagree. The Republican party was engaging in witch-hunting.

And then there are Hillary’s blatant lies, even about having lied:

I don’t see how you can accuse her of being squirrelly about having lied at the same time accusing her of having lied about lying.

Except she lied many, many times during her previous campaign about how she and Chelsea landed in Bosnia and had to run for their cars under a hail of sniper fire, only to be exposed for lying about it when the comedian Sinbad spoke out about having been there too and there was no sniper fire. Hillary then lied and tried to pass it off as a one-time thing, saying she was exhausted from campaigning and merely ‘misspoke’, apparently unaware that everything is recorded these days and many instances were found where she’d told the same story time and again to different audiences. Plus, I’ve been pretty damn tired on occasion in my life, but I don’t believe I ever imagined myself to have come under sniper fire or any other thing that never happened. So she lied about being shot at, and then lied about how many times she’d said it, then lied about why she said it in the first place, and then lied again when she told Scott Pelly she’s always been truthful in the past. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, the Clintons lie like they breathe - easily and constantly.

Pfft. People exaggerate all the time. Everyone from Paul Ryan pretending to be washing dishes at a soup kitchen to Ronald Reagan saying he helped liberate Auschwitz.

And yes, Hillary’s a bitch behind the scenes and everyone knows it. That cat was let out of the bag way back in the 90s when Connie Chung conned Newt Gingrich’s mother into revealing what her son had told her about what Hillary was really like. Given the way liberals hate it when someone has power of any kind, I’m surprised to see them glossing over the way she uses her position to act like an asshole to people who have no choice but to take it. (And why you think her husband’s philandering makes it okay to be shitty to secret service agents or anyone else is anyone’s guess, but as for me, I was brought up to believe it’s wrong to behave badly to other people just because I’m in a bad mood or something’s troubling me, so I naturally think it’s wrong when somebody like her does it.)

Its only remarkable because she’s a woman and she’s supposed to be nice.

I can tell you for a fact that most politicians are assholes. The incidence of assholery among politicians is much higher than the general population.

She and her husband are both crooked as hell and pretty much everyone knows it. But just like Bill’s behavior toward women drew bupkis from feminists, they’re allowed to get away with it because they’re ‘on the right side’ politically.

I see a lot of things that might raise my eyebrow but straight out crooked? I think you are being affected by a personal dislike for Hillary.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@Czarcasm

I hear a lot on these boards about how Liberals just don’t trust her and won’t vote for her because of all those supposed scandals…but I don’t seem to hear it from the actual Liberals.

Liberals don’t like her because they don’t trust her to be liberal on anything other than women’s issues.

[YogSothoth]

@razncain

Exactly the thing Anderson Cooper called her out on. Hillary lying for 12 minutes straight.

So I read a response to this that basically rejects the premise entirely. Let’s take it one by one:

Gay marriage
Yes, its true that Clinton changed her mind on this, but if you’re around long enough, you will have changed your mind on it too. On this board, even notorious conservative Bricker changed his mind on it. You know who else did? Obama, who said he’d support civil unions but not marriage. I think most of us were pleasantly surprised how quickly public opinion turned on this. In 2004 it was a losing issue and in 2008 and 2012 it ceased to be one. Were all of those people wrong? Yes. But one reason why the public changed its opinion is because people met and talked to gay people who came out. Without looking that boogeyman in the eye and seeing them as a real person, sometimes you believe the lies (ironic that Clinton haters are doing the same thing). Her husband helped to pass a law that staved off a possible Constitutional Amendment banning gay marriage. So I think that as she got to know gay people, saw them represented in the media and other places, she, like most of America, realized gays were not the evil perverts that the religious right painted them as. People can change with new information, she didn’t lie

Immigration
Net immigration used to be positive, now its not. We have less immigrants coming to the US than before. New information = change in policy. Not hard to understand. You’ll find it a recurring theme in a politician who’s been around for decades

TPP
Continued modification of the text means that one can support the idea and not the actual document once it is finalized. The text was not available to the public until 2015, years after Clinton was already out of the administration. Its no knock on her that she doesn’t support the finalized version. More information = new stance

A lot of the other parts of the video are just clips of her saying a few lines or two. For example, one can be both moderate and progressive. I myself am progressive on most things but moderate on others (such as my support of Hillary over a more liberal Bernie). Its not a contradiction when there is a myriad of different topics that you can be more or less progressive on.

Emails
As its been established, Clinton may have violated policy, but she didn’t violate any laws regarding her use of a private server. The email thing is a molehill demanding to be a mountain.

Benghazi
As we’ve had the most comprehensive investigation into Benghazi than any previous scandal or issue, including 9/11, and they still haven’t found anything, I’m 100% on Clinton’s side on this. There was no coverup, no deception, no mistakes. It just was an unfortunate incident in a dangerous part of the world, the kind that GWB allowed to happen 13 times leading to 87 deaths, not counting his ignoring of pre 9/11 intel.

Subprime crisis
As Clinton says in the full speech, both homeowners and banks played a part in that fiasco. How odd that typically, the full context is never included in these videos or quotes. Its as if it came straight from the bowels of Fox. And Clinton was correct, you can’t simply blame it on the banks, though they deserve the majority of the blame. If people agree to buy something without the money to back it up, that is partly on them. There were more parties responsible too, government, Wall Street, individual lenders.

Health care
The creators of the video want you to see side-by-side the contrast between what Clinton/Obama said about the individual mandate, and what Clinton/Sanders is saying now. However, given that we didn’t have health care in 2008 and we do now, the arguments are entirely different. Its a lie by the authors to infer that Clinton’s position was that Dems can’t disagree on health care, and she is right to question Sanders’ plan because it removes some hard fought policies to chase a better one. She’s urging caution, something a pragmatic moderate often does, and she’s right.

Bosnia
Yup, she lied about it and she apologized. Wow, nice catch there. I guess that one lie totally and retroactively removes all her positions, policies, and experience! First lie of the video too, how about that?

NAFTA
Clinton supported NAFTA, wanted to make the trade agreement better, and was disappointed it wasn’t what was originally promised. That’s not a lie, that’s called government. Obama wanted single-payer, realized he couldn’t get it, then settled for the mandate. Was he lying? Hell, I don’t even agree that his “you can keep your health insurance” was a lie. States who turned down a federally funded program that would decrease the number of uninsured in their state for the sole reason to spite Obama blocked it. He didn’t lie about that, and he didn’t lie about closing Guantanamo. At the very most, he aimed too high and didn’t get what he wanted. If Bernie gets into office, he better get used to that, because the GOP is blocking more than half of everything he wants and will water down the rest. But to claim Clinton lied because she didn’t get everything she wanted and then was disappointed in the result is not only a stupid accusation, but its a malicious one designed to make people believe in the propaganda that she’s untrustworthy.

And what’s with the fart noise? As if we needed any more proof this was a juvenile effort designed by idiots. This video itself is a lie: it doesn’t show Hillary lying for 13 mins or even 1 minute. Anyone who watches it and comes away with a negative opinion of her hated her from the beginning

[Czarcasm]

@Damuri_Ajashi

Liberals don’t like her because they don’t trust her to be liberal on anything other than women’s issues.

And you know this because you go to all the “Liberal” parties, right?

[MindsEye_Watering]

@Damuri_Ajashi

Liberals don’t like her because they don’t trust her to be liberal on anything other than women’s issues.

Wow. I’m a Liberal and I didn’t know that I didn’t trust her on anything other than women’s issues. Did I miss a memo?

What else should I, as a Liberal, know about Mrs. Clinton?

[Czarcasm]

@MindsEye_Watering

Wow. I’m a Liberal and I didn’t know that I didn’t trust her on anything other than women’s issues. Did I miss a memo?

What else should I, as a Liberal, know about Mrs. Clinton?

And while you’re at it, Damuri, could you tell us our opinion about foreign aid?

[DrDeth]

@Moriarty

Hillary Clinton has one of the highest disapproval ratings of anyone who could realistically become president (Trump’s is higher, of course, but I digress). And it seems like it’s conventional wisdom why - she’s a liar; she’s crooked; her entire public life has been marked by scandal and corruption. Hell, she had one of her close friends (which one? take you pick!) killed!

Well, I don’t buy it.

None of it. It’s all just a smear campaign that has dogged her since her husband was governor of Arkansas.

While she has certainly made mistakes, misstatements, and blunders, she doesn’t show a pattern of lying, and she’s not an incompetent fool. While she has been politically connected (and politics is dirty), she is not corrupt. While she is married to a serial adulterer, she is not responsible for Bill’s foibles.

Well, she* is *a career lawyer and politico, so she is a liar. But from sites like Politifact and Snopes, it appears she is less so that many others.

But Karl Rove and the GOP hate machine has been making shit up about her for decades now. Check Snopes.

If Bernie was winning they’d be spreading lies and shit about him, too. His popularity would plummet.