[Vanity] Points for Trump to use debating Clinton

she bobs and weaves, ducks and covers, jabs and moves.

The fact is we had four dead Americans! Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night who decided they’d go kill some Americans? What difference at this point does it make? - Hillary Clinton
It makes no difference between those two options. The reality is that the Benghazi attack, and the whole story of ISIS from then until now, puts paid to the fable that the “General Motors is alive and Osama bin Laden is dead” meme represents a successful Obama/Clinton foreign policy.
The “protest of a video” fable was never anything but a fraudulent cover story to get the Administration past the two months from 9/11/12 to the first Wednesday in November. And in furtherance of this swindle, the maker of the otherwise insignificant video was arbitrarily imprisoned. And the US State Department spent money apologizing for the video. That money should be reimbursed by the DNC.
“Bobbing and weaving” - and lying.

Hillary Clinton is running for president. In 1992 Hillary Clinton promoted the idea that she would be a “co president,” and she was always counted as a force to be reckoned with in the White House in those years. She does not want anyone to mention the 22^nd Amendment in that regard, of course . . . A lot has been made of the email scandal which the FBI has announced represents gross negligence on the part of Hillary in the handling of sensitive information. That is part of a pattern, we have seen this before.

The White House FBI files controversy of the Clinton Administration, often referred to as Filegate,[1] arose in June 1996 around improper access in 1993 and 1994 to Federal Bureau of Investigation security-clearance documents. Craig Livingstone, director of the White House's Office of Personnel Security, improperly requested, and received from the FBI, background reports concerning several hundred individuals without asking permission. The revelations provoked a strong political and press reaction because many of the files covered White House employees from previous Republican administrations, including top presidential advisors. - Wikipedia
This scandal was so toxic - hundreds of counts of a felony, committed in the White House itself - that it was finally announced that Craig Livingstone “was fired” - note the passive voice - but the White House absolutely refused to admit who hired, or even who fired, Craig Livingstone. The Wikipedia link above claims Livingstone resigned, but that was not the story at the time.
Craig Livingstone was never prosecuted for his felonies, and no one was assigned blame for his hiring. In a logical world, that means that “it happened on Bill Clinton’s watch” is the true location of responsibility - but politics is not logical, and he never was held to account for it.
Now the issue is whether privacy matters at all in 21^st Century America. If Hillary can be utterly indifferent to secrecy of the US government when it does not suit her convenience to care for it, why are we to believe that she cared any more for the privacy of prominent American citizens - mostly Republican, but also Democrat - which were violated by the White House early in the Clinton Administration? Hillary Clinton knew, and knows, who hired Craig Livingstone. And probably did it herself, with malice aforethought.

IMHO, he's going to have to refute "Clinton's economy" and "the peace and prosperity of the Clinton years".

He can point out that the "balanced budget" was enabled by several factors that had nothing to do with his policies.
1. The end of the Cold War.
2. The revenue from the tech boom, and later from Y2K.
3. In spite of numerous AQ attacks, effectively punting the WOT and its expense to the next administration.

The jobs that were created during his watch were from the tech boom, which in turn helped boost other industries. The whole mess was built on the tech bubble, which started to burst a year before he left office.

And don't forget the 500,000 Iraqi children and teens who were killed as a result of his policies, but that was a price we were willing to pay, wasn't it?

Part II: “I have proposed reforming trade agreements. As part of that, I will ask Congress to pass a law that any foreign corporation importing goods to the U.S. must meet minimum standards that already pertain to U.S. companies, commensurate with their own economies. This includes a decent salary, better working conditions, and health benefits. A panel of labor union representatives would certify that these corporations meet those minimum standards. I believe this would improve the lot of many foreign workers and move many jobs back back to the U.S.”

The DNC convention bragged incessantly about how wonderful Hillary has been, how much good she has done. But, there is no there there. Absolutely no mention of any good done by a Clinton Foundation. Which is interesting, because foreign governments donated to the Clinton Foundation, and paid honoraria to Bill for speeches. According to the Constitution, Article 1 Section 9: No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States: and no person holding any office of profit or trust under them, shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state Since Hillary does not claim to have done wonders for society via the Clinton Foundation, we need not trouble to point out that if she did, that would be claiming a “title,” of sorts, credit for which she was indebted to foreign governments. Likewise, it is no stretch at all to point out that payments to the spouse of the Secretary of State are just as suspicious as payments to the Secretary of State herself. And the Constitutional provision above essentially bans the appearance of impropriety - and one need not be Secretary of State to invoke “profit or trust.” Indeed - and here, I have to fault Ronald Reagan himself, as well as President Clinton - retired presidents drawing a pension and Secret Service protection also fall into the category of “holding [an] office of profit or trust.” Retired presidents should not be trolling for dollars from foreign governments. Sell books, if you need $$$.
The bottom line to me is that the Clinton syndicate cuts every corner imaginable, including the above constitutional provision and the prohibition against being president for more than ten years.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.