Hillary Clinton in her policies is repleat with teh description of Demopublican.
There is a pattern with the Clinton family, which has been in the public spotlight since Bill Clinton’s first run for office, in 1974: Something that appears potentially scandalous on its face turns out to be innocuous, but an investigation into it reveals different questionable behavior. The canonical case is Whitewater, a failed real-estate investment Bill and Hillary Clinton made in 1978. While no inquiry ever produced evidence of wrongdoing, investigations ultimately led to President Clinton’s impeachment for perjury and obstruction of justice.
With Hillary Clinton leading the field for the Democratic nomination for president, every Clinton scandal—from Whitewater to the State Department emails—will be under the microscope. (No other American politicians—even ones as corrupt as Richard Nixon, or as hated by partisans as George W. Bush—have fostered the creation of a permanent multimillion-dollar cottage industry devoted to attacking them.) Keeping track of each controversy, where it came from, and how serious it is, is no small task, so here’s a primer.
It has a tendency to flare up, then die down. Senator Bernie Sanders made it a useful attack against her in early 2016, suggesting that by speaking to banks like Goldman Sachs, she was compromised. There have been calls for Clinton to release the transcripts of her speeches, which she was declined to do, saying if every other candidate does, she will too. For the Clintons, who left the White House up to their ears in legal debt, lucrative speeches—mostly by the former president—proved to be an effective way of rebuilding wealth. They have also been an effective magnet for prying questions. Where did Bill, Hillary, and Chelsea Clinton speak? How did they decide how much to charge? What did they say? How did they decide which speeches would be given on behalf of the Clinton Foundation with fees going to the charity,
Are there cases of conflicts of interest or quid pro quos—for example, speaking gigs for Bill Clinton on behalf of clients who had business before the State Department?
Clinton White house Controversies:
The Travelgate investigation was prompted by differing accounts of the role of the first lady in the May 1993 firing of all seven employees of the White House travel office. The firings themselves were not illegal. At issue was whether the first lady or others had sought to cover up her actions and whether anyone broke the law by testifying falsely about her role.
There is a glaring bit of hypocrisy in Clinton’s dismay. In 1999, her husband offered pardons to 16 unrepentant members of a fringe Puerto Rican terrorist group known as the FALN (Armed Forces of National Liberation), who were based in the U.S., and the Macheteros (machete-wielders), the FALN’s island-based branch. They were seeking independence from the U.S. and had virtually no political support on the island
During the 1970s and 1980s, FALN members set off at least 138 bombs in five major U.S. Cities. Six Americans were killed in those attacks. One of those bombings, in January 1975, was at the historic Fraunces Tavern in lower Manhattan while patrons were at lunch. The explosion killed four and injured more than 50.
She lied about the Irish peace process, her vote in favor of the Iraq war, her reason for illegally using a personal email server, that her family was dead broke when they left the White House, about landing under sniper fire in Bosnia, where Chelsea was on 9/11, who she was named after, Benghazi… and the list goes on. We don’t need a liar-in-chief. We tried that already. It didn’t work.
Despite her campaign slogan, she is definitely not just like you. Hillary Clinton was married to a President, had a personal chef, flies in a environment polluting personal jet, has sent her daughter exclusively to private schools, and makes about $200K for every speaking engagement. That’s so you, right? And your middle-class neighbors – they’ve got a private jet out back,
n a five-minute video compilation, Veritas showed senior members of Mrs. Clinton’s team appearing to accept a donation from a Canadian women at Mrs. Clinton’s campaign announcement rally in exchange for hats and pins bearing the candidate’s name. The staff members — Molly Barker and Erin Tibe — express awareness that they cannot accept a donation from a foreigner but agree to allow the Canadian woman to give the money to an American citizen standing next to her who made the transaction on her behalf.
Although the American happened to be one of Project Veritas’s staff members who used a fake name, Mr. O’Keefe made the case that the video showed a willingness by the campaign to skirt laws that forbid taking donations from foreigners by using a conduit. The transaction amounted to $75, and Project Veritas has asked Mrs. Clinton’s campaign to refund the money.