What’s Worse: Trump’s Mouth Or Hillary & Bill’s TAWDRY History?

The Media (D) is giddy with glee over Trump’s ‘hot mic’ moment. They could write a book about it, maybe title it: ‘The Art of the Smear: No More Republican Presidents’. Is this the END of Trump?

No, and here’s why:

Trump talked about it… Bill did worse… and Hillary intimidated his victims.

You wonder how long Team Hillary was sitting on this clip, waiting to unload it on the Republican camp. It was the ‘Holy Grail’ of smear campaigns: The ‘Hot Mic’.

Really? That’s the big reveal?

What is the ‘big reveal’ this time? The man running for President has dubious sexual purity.

[Note this soundbite from eleven years ago (2005) when, frankly, Trump was still hanging out with the Clintons and registered as a Democrat.]

‘But he was married!’ Right. And so was JFK… To the Peoples’ beloved Jacqueline! So was that guy who took office between the Dubya and his dad. The one who used his intern like a humidor. Didn’t sexual purity STOP (like it or loathe it) being a required Presidential virtue in the 1990’s?

And was this not by the general will and consent of The People themselves who were happy for the Economy under Clinton, and ignored the rest?

It really makes no difference WHO the GOP nominee is. The object is NOT to show ‘real’ problems with the candidate. They don’t NEED real isssues to destroy someone (see ‘binders full of women’). They just need a narrative.

The REAL object is to torpedo the opponent — by any and all means necessary — so thoroughly that their own candidate can win unopposed.

This is mission critical. It is required so that the orderly dance of trading money, power, favors, and appointments can continue without the music ever stopping. Lies and the truth are equally valid for this purpose.

Notice the people wringing their hands over this issue are the same ones unable to speak the name ‘Chappaquiddick’. They are people who would gladly nominate JFK for sainthood. (Despite his habit of instructing interns to ‘service’ himself AND his guests.)

People who are on record saying they ‘would be happy to give [Bill Clinton] [oral sex] just to thank him for keeping abortion legal.’

The same woman who wants to put a Statute of Limitations on her own worst statements (like knowingly telling mourning parents that some random filmmaker was responsible for the gruesome deaths of their loved ones, and not a deliberate attack by Islamic terrorists.

What difference — at this point — does it make?

Which is it, Hillary? How far in the past are horrible words spoken about women relevant?

Really Ms ‘Woman Card’. Skip your ‘Deal Me In’ spiel, and spare us your manufactured Feminist outrage. Where do you stand on the IMPORTANT pro-woman issues.

NOT the WORDS or CONSENSUAL sexual indiscretions of either your husband or your opponent.

Instead, where do you stand on the PRESSING QUESTION of William Jefferson Clinton’s NON-Consensual sexual advances? This is Key, especially since you say of accusers: they MUST BE HEARD AND BELIEVED.

What about your deliberate attempt to undermine and DESTROY the lives of women who had the misfortune — sometimes by no choice of their own — of seeing your husband’s bare tallywhacker?

Bill’s sexual history has devastated many women

And don’t forget Hillary’s allegedly PERSONAL role in it:

“[Hillary] came directly to me as soon as she hit the door. I had been there only a few minutes, I only wanted to make an appearance and leave. She caught me and took my hand and said ‘I am so happy to meet you. I want you to know that we appreciate everything you do for Bill.’ I started to turn away and she held onto my hand and reiterated her phrase — looking less friendly and repeated her statement — ‘Everything you do for Bill’. I said nothing. She wasn’t letting me get away until she made her point. She talked low, the smile faded on the second thank you. I just released her hand from mine and left the gathering.”

DrudgeReport

Which we have also seen in Hillary’s handling of LEGITIMATE accusations that she denied:

Running to be the first woman president, Democratic presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton has taken a stern stand on combating sexual harassment and assault — and has insisted that every accuser who comes forward has “the right to be believed.”

But Mrs. Clinton took a very different approach herself 25 years ago as the wife of then-Gov. Bill Clinton, leading the effort to discredit women who came forward with their own stories of harassment or assault by her husband.

Campaign narratives written by reporters detailed how she honchoed the campaign team that handled “bimbo eruptions,” digging up personal papers and official records that could be used to undercut the stories told by a series of women. One top aide later recounted Mrs. Clinton’s intent to “destroy” the story of one accuser, while former adviser Dick Morris said Mrs. Clinton engaged in “blackmail” to try to force women to recant their stories.

The disconnect between Mrs. Clinton’s historic campaign and her own past is quickly becoming an issue in the presidential election, driven in part by Republican opponent Donald Trump’s vow to make her husband, the former president, an issue for her.

Washington Times

So we know Hillary has a ridiculous double standard. Transcripts say her husband owes favors to a billionaire pedophile (convicted). Where does that fit on your moral hierarchy?

Twitter reminds Hillary of her husband’s past:

Here is Trump’s Facebook apology:

Trump is no choirboy.

He’s been married 3 times, his infidelities are on public record.

So are Bill’s.

Share if Hillary could NEVER produce enough dirt on her opponent to make her look like a valid alternative.

Like Clash? Like Clash.

Leave a comment

Please disable your Ad Blocker to leave a comment.

Trending Now on Clash Daily