I kind of want to believe what Hilary says, and I like how she pointed out how republicans are treating this stuff with the lack of transparency they claim they want.
Her husband, on the other hand, is a scumbag.
To the wood chipper indeed.
I don't think Hillary is by any stretch guilty of, say, running a pedo ring in the pizza parlor or for that matter necessarily involved in trafficking, etc.
HOWEVER......and this is where I hedge......
Hillary Clinton developed a well-earned (and deserved) reputation long ago for going after anyone who stood in her husband's way, particularly women with stories about their affairs with him. This is a big reason why her "believe women" nonsense never fooled anyone - because she herself didn't "believe" Kathleen Willey or Juannita Broaddrick or Paula Jones or Gennifer Flowers, etc. Or if she was a human and DID believe them, it did not prevent her from an end justifies the means tactic.
Do any of us REALLY believe given her own pathologies that she wouldn't engage in a cover-up of Bill with an underage girl? The classic Clinton scandal in this case goes like this: she REALLY did have nothing to do with Epstein but an enterprising reporter starts pulling on a loose thread and we find out that back in the 1970s, Attorney General Bill was having threesomes with 16-year-old high school cheerleaders. Hillary, aware of the dangers of this to her lust to be President, sets up a Jim Bakker/PTL type payoff for the poor Arkansas families that they will receive payments just so long as they're silent.
Now, I have NO EVIDENCE this happened, and we can't jail people based on suspicion of something that may or may not have happened.
But this would be the typical Clinton scandal, too: guilty of what is alleged just not in the case where it is alleged. That's what always separates a Clinton scandal from a Trump one; he ALWAYS did EXACTLY what is alleged.
www.bbc.com
www.pbs.org
