Posted on 05/16/2016 7:54:23 AM PDT by Sybeck1
Donald J. Trump plans to throw Bill Clinton’s infidelities in Hillary Clinton’s face on live television during the presidential debates this fall, questioning whether she enabled his behavior and sought to discredit the women involved. Mr. Trump will try to hold her accountable for security lapses at the American consulate in Benghazi, Libya, and for the death of Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens there. And he intends to portray Mrs. Clinton as fundamentally corrupt, invoking everything from her cattle futures trades in the late 1970s to the federal investigation into her email practices as secretary of state. Drawing on psychological warfare tactics that Mr. Trump used to defeat “Lyin’ Ted” Cruz, “Little Marco” Rubio and “Low-Energy” Jeb Bush in the Republican primaries, the Trump campaign is mapping out character attacks on the Clintons to try to increase their negative poll ratings and bait them into making political mistakes, according to interviews with Mr. Trump and his advisers.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
“Security lapses in Benghazi”
___________________
Um, wut?
I don’t think Trump is gonna let her frame it that way, NYT.
Mika the douche bag Shil for Hil said this AM its going to get ugly.
Correction Mika its going to get real and if thats ugly to your ilk than so be it.
“I am coming for you in a way you won’t like, cannot defend, and you cannot stop me from doing it. I don’t give a damn if you’re a woman. The gloves are off and for the first time in your life, you are going to get a righteous ass-kicking.”
I might just look forward to the campaign ahead. No more the-Bitch-is-inevitable stuff.
I think Trump is already going psychological warfare to drive her from the race. At least put the fear in her. No way she wants to defend all this all at once.
Trump needs to hit back at the press too...
Trump needs to hit back at the press too... we all sick of the New York Times and Washington Post double standards...
How about a book interviewing ‘friends and former lovers’ of current New York Times reporters and editors?
The best way to handle the Times & Mrs. Clinton, is to keep the attack on the Times deliberate smears & deceptions, and the sordid personal history of Mrs. Clinton, in her putative "public service" all the way back to her being fired as a proven "liar," by the Watergate Committee.
Going after a candidate's personal relationships is always risky. (The Times did it because they are desperate, not out of strength, but out of realizing that their Leftist views are no answer to Donald Trump's patriotism.) From Watergate to Libya, for over 40 years, Hillary's public service has been a disaster. Stick to the issues; avoid seeming to be going after her for personal idiosyncrasies.
The mistake in the Clinton impeachment in 1999, was that the Republicans went after him for private conduct; when there was ample evidence that he had misused his office to advance a corrupt social policy agenda.
Wishful thinking, NYT. He's going to talk about SEXUAL ASSAULTS and Hillary's role in intimidating the victims.
While this line of attack (she was an enabler of Willie) is a good one. I hope a lot of this is a head fake. Yes, I want to see him bring this up, but then swing to other things like the Clinton foundation, e-mail servers and Benghazi and continue on about how we can’t trust her. Even little things like telling the lie about caught in sniper fire and being named after Sir Edmund Hillary. They are all little things that add up to a continuing pattern of lies.
As a frequent critic of Trump, I will say that this is one of the glaring bright spots of his candidacy. Hillary always looks like somebody just stomped on her testicles when criticism is directed at her. The debates should be fun if she doesn’t just refuse to participate.
Nothing should be off limits really
The usual tactic, slay the messenger regardless of the truth of the message.
he’s going to kick her in the nuts
I’ve not been a Trump supporter, but having said that I will vote for him. The one quality I like about him that none of the others had is his willingness to go after his opponents. No one and I mean no one has gone after the Clintons the way they richly deserve.
I’m going to make a prediction. Hillary’s campaign is going to attempt to limit the debates to one, perhaps two. They will be forced to agree to more because in this case, all of the major news organizations are in agreement on one thing. They want as many debates between Hillary and the Donald as they can get. It comes down to business and the ratings will be through the roof. She won’t get away with only having one or two debates. The press won’t let her off the hook on that one.
>>> For Mrs. Clinton, the coming battle is something of a paradox. She has decades of experience and qualifications, but it may not be merit that wins her the presidency — it may be how she handles the humiliations inflicted by Mr. Trump. <<<
Gaufaw, gaufaw ...... The Left keep insisting their fantasy, re: her “decades of experience and qualifications”.
The only result of her “decades of experience and qualifications” is her and Bill's bank roll.
Consider the source. While the article might be based on actual journalism, it may also be a complete fabrication.
I agree, that is exactly what he is doing.
Hillary thought she could coast into office using her “womanhood” as a shield.
Not going to work.
Maybe she will have health issues before the debates
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.