Turncoat Kinzinger: No Respect for Troops Getting the Surf & Turf He Once...
Hypocrite Josh Shapiro Uses Squatter's Rights to Build Himself a Security Barrier on...
Monumental Idea: A 'Mount Rushmore' to Honor CNN’s Most Ridiculous Cringeworthy Moments
Democrat Operatives Now Very Concerned With Fiscal Responsibility
CNN’s Abby Phillip Issues On-Air Correction to Lie That Suspected Terrorists Targeted NYC...
UK Teachers Told Students’ Drawings Could Be Blasphemous Under Islamic Law
Even Chicago Tribune Questions Story of Citizen Who Says ICE Detained Her for...
James Talarico: Fascism Will Come Draped in the (Trans) Flag and Carrying the...
Hilarious Parody CPAC Line Up Revealed
Olivia Julianna: America Literally Became a Country Because a Bunch of Men Signed...
Chile Chooses God and Family: Pro-Life Dad of 9 José Antonio Kast Takes...
Swalwell: All Ears for Optics, Deaf to Waste – Flies South for Clicks...
Another CNN Reporter Walks Back Post Implying That Mamdani Was the Target of...
Molly Jong-Fast Raked for Complaining About ‘Astronomical Amount’ Spent on Shellfish for T...
Human Springboard for IED-Throwing Terrorist Spends His 15 Minutes Talking About White Sup...

Just say no: Hillary Clinton wisely shoots down any idea of addressing her husband's 'indiscretions'

 

First things first: it would be helpful if everyone, Donald Trump included, could grow up and stop using words like “indiscretions” to soft-pedal Bill Clinton’s “alleged” affairs and alleged rape (which, despite Andrea Mitchell’s aside, was never “discredited,” a claim NBC News attempted to memory-hole from its video archive).

Advertisement

It’s been hypothesized that Hillary Clinton’s name-dropping of Alicia Machado was a trap that Trump just couldn’t avoid walking into, but make no mistake: Clinton won’t be making the same error. Asked Thursday night if she felt any obligation to speak out about a spouse’s past being brought into a campaign, Clinton just said no.

https://twitter.com/WastingTimeToo/status/781644225494384640

Again, that question, posed by a reporter on Air Hillary, was, “Do you, as someone who presumably wants more women to run for and win office, high office, do you feel any obligation, if Trump brings up your husband’s past, to speak out against a spouse’s indiscretions or past being brought into a campaign like this?”

That answer, again, was “No.”

Ridiculed as it was, Nancy Reagan’s “Just Say No” initiative made sense; a one-word answer shuts down any follow-up sales pitch by not feeding the questioner anything to counter.

Needless to say, Clinton’s supporters were thrilled with her answer; as we’ve reported, many of them saw no obligation for her to ever hold a press conference until after she’d been elected.

Advertisement

That’s the understatement of the year; Clinton even decided for herself that her right to privacy extended to all of her official email correspondence as secretary of state.

https://twitter.com/ProChildVA/status/781617209512714240

It’s a crazy thought, but if Clinton wanted to keep spouses out of the campaign, maybe she could stop talking about her “secret weapon” and citing his record during debates when asked about her plan to create jobs.

Join the conversation as a VIP Member

Recommended

Trending on Twitchy Videos