Questionable Reports on ‘Uncrooked Hillary’ Claim She Is More Honest Than Trump
By Daily Bell Staff - July 01, 2016

The claim that Hillary is innately dishonest is simply accepted as a given. It is an accusation and conviction so ingrained in the conversation about her that any attempt to even question it is often met with shock. And yet here’s the thing: it’s not actually true. –

We are told by Andrew Tobias that Hillary was actually the most truthful candidate (of either Party) in the 2016 election season, according to Politifact.

Tobias is both a Democrat and a defender of Hillary Clinton. He’s also a well-known writer who once was Treasurer of the Democratic National Committee.

His recent article is not the only one offering Hillary revisionism. There are actually a number of articles circulating about Hillary that emphasize her honesty, presumably as a rebuttal to Donald Trump who has labeled her “Crooked Hillary.”

One can speculate this is spontaneous, or one can believe that the Hillary campaign itself may be behind this sudden “Uncrooked Hillary” meme.

Tobias reminds us in the same article, that a more adversarial writer, Jill Abramson – an executive editor of the New York Times, came to similar conclusions.

He quotes her:

“As an editor I’ve launched investigations into her business dealings, her fundraising, her foundation and her marriage. As a reporter my stories stretch back to Whitewater. I’m not a favorite in Hillaryland. That makes what I want to say next surprising. Hillary Clinton is fundamentally honest and trustworthy.”  . . .

Tobias blames former New York Times conservative columnist William Safire for setting off suspicion of Hillary back in the 1990s when he wrote “a scathing and now-famous essay about the Clinton scandal, Whitewater, entitled, ‘Blizzard of Lies’.

Tobias adds that there was already a predilection to dislike Hillary among conservatives because “she had refused to play the traditional First Lady role. And they were horrified by her attempt to champion Universal Health coverage.”

But the real reason people want to accept her crookedness, he continues, is because she comes across to people as a “self-righteous leftist who considered anyone with other views to be morally inferior.”

It wasn’t any evidence of dishonesty that turned people against her so much as her attitude. She was “intolerably smug.”

Is this true? The problem with Hillary is that she seems willing to exploit the system any way she can to gain her objectives. You can see a list of some Clinton scandals HERE.

It is probably not “smugness” that bothers people about Hillary so much as an aura of fanaticism.

Certainly she exploits the system for personal gain but she also seems a good deal more ideological than her husband.  This is the same combination of traits in other leaders that has proven disastrous to society.

The combination of ruthlessness and fanaticism is often toxic to open societies. It may result in a considerable accumulation of state power if she becomes president.

The mostly unspoken worry is so much power in the hands of the Clintons, once again, could lead to a good deal more authoritarianism and maybe even a change in the way Americans are governed.

Hillary is very obviously someone who enjoys wielding power and is not afraid to use it, mostly behind the scenes.

Conclusion: The combination of Hillary’s personalty traits seem to hint strongly at sociopathic tendencies, as we suggested previously. This is far more worrisome than “crookedness.”

You don’t have to play by the rules of the corrupt politicians, manipulative media, and brainwashed peers.

When you subscribe to The Daily Bell, you also get a free guide:

How to Craft a Two Year Plan to Reclaim 3 Specific Freedoms.

This guide will show you exactly how to plan your next two years to build the free life of your dreams. It’s not as hard as you think…

Identify. Plan. Execute.

Yes, deliver THE DAILY BELL to my inbox!


Biggest Currency Reboot in 100 Years?
In less than 3 months, the biggest reboot to the U.S. dollar in 100 years could sweep America.
It has to do with a quiet potential government agreement you’ve never heard about.

  • Praetor

    Hillary, reminds me of, Miranda Priestly, in the ‘Devil wears Prada’. Hillary Rodham Clinton is very dangers person, and never to be trusted.

    I would never allow her to stand behind me, never!!!

  • Hmm, for starters Hillary has lied about how she handled the classified documents on her illegal server numerous times. The 30,000 deleted records weren’t yoga emails, either. Does Hillary look like a dedicated yoga student? No those emails were damning to her, so she deleted them. For instance where is the classified email from Ambassador Stevens regarding the time and place of his ill-fated secret meeting? Don’t try to tell us she didn’t get that email.

    She flat out lied about a video causing the Benghazi attack when she knew immediately that the attack was an organized assault with heavy weapons and not a protest due to a video.

    Are we to believe the Rose Law firm billing records floated down from the heavens onto her bedroom dresser? Did she really earn $100,000 fair and square in the cattle future’s market?

    There are a lot more lies, but this ought to get the ball rolling.

  • Jim Johnson

    She stood along side the mourning families as their sons arrived from Benghazi, looked them in the eye and lied. (She was asked directly) That crossed the line with me. Mr. Tobias should know he will never get a pass as his apologetic article will long be remembered, (actually forever) when his current employer is no longer around to pay him anything. Maybe he’ll write a book on how he was forced to do this. Yeah. That oughtta do it.

  • Bruce C.

    I definitely agree that she has all the character traits of a narcissist and sociopath, and part and parcel of that is she is INTELLECTUALLY dishonest. I’m sure she has lied about a lot of things, but voters should care most about her true intentions. That’s why she’s untrustworthy: She won’t uphold and defend the US Constitution. I doubt even Tobias would disagree with that.

    To me she is a wolf in sheep’s clothing.

  • Disingenuous

    I needed a good laugh! Thanks Hillary.

  • Samarami

    There is no way to “win” at the political charade without prevarication. S/he who can outright falsify with the straightest face “wins”. Therefore, I’d not expend emotional energy denigrating this individual for doing an expert job in the task at hand.

    Abstain from beans, my friends. Sam

  • Harry de Vries

    I think a Trump presidency could serve the goals of the power elite much more then a Clinton presidency.

    It’s probably the same as the Brexit, now all the coming woes and maybe the horrible crisis that is being “cooked” in the power elite kitchen to be served soon to the masses (or whatever other cataclysmic event(s) they are planning) can be blamed on those horrible nationalists, those horrible populists who caused the Brexit.

    Before this happens though a Trump presidency might also be needed because the mainstream media has positioned Trump firmly in the right, nationalist and populist and BREXIT camp and the US is still the most powerfull nation in the world so if the events happen after Trump has become president (maybe a while after his election), Trump, the Brexiteers and all those other populists can be given the blame for everything after the elite has unleashed one or a series of horrible events over the world. Probably or maybe a breakdown of the EU as one of the first big events followed by an epic crisis or maybe even a world crisis followed by a huge war.

    All the woes can then be blamed on the so called populists (see what happens if nations move away from globalism, see what happens if an anti-establishment guys like Trump becomes president, and don’t say we did not warn you guys, before the Brexit happend we predicted the disasters that would happen, before Trump became president we predicted what would be the outcome….) and because of the fact that the globalists own not only the mainstream media but also the financial institutions they not only have the power to make the events happen (to direct history so to speak) but they also have the capability to make the people (or at least most of the people) believe that everything is the fault of the populists.

    They will ofcourse present the only viable solution to the people and promise that only more centralisation or perhaps even the immediate implementation of a one-world-governemt will end the misery of the masses and the masses having been made so desperate and destitude will probably accept that as the solution if they can be made to believe that this will end their misery.

    So perhaps a Brexit and a coming Trump presidency have been and will not be events the power elite has tried and is trying to prevent but have been and will be events the power elite has actively caused to happen.

  • bbenhamid

    Rodham = Rodomski ( Clinton ) always speaks the truth even when she lies.

  • Roscoe63

    People that support this lying b–ch are fu–ing retards, she will lie, cheat, and steal from you, pull your heads out of your a–es you morons

  • r2bzjudge

    We are told by Andrew Tobias that Hillary was actually the most truthful
    candidate (of either Party) in the 2016 election season, according to

    Tobias is peddling fiction.

  • apberusdisvet

    Hmmm. raised as a Goldwater Republican, she became, in college, an Alinsky Marxist, then morphed into a Progressive Democrat (actually the same as an Alinsky Marxist, but it’s more PC), then became a neocon warmonger to suit the wishes of her masters in the banking cartel, but, in truth she is actually just a grifter from Arkansas who, one step from trailer trash, is interested only in personal aggrandizement and accumulation of wealth by any means necessary.

  • mhyke

    This has been no greater liar running for president,than Trump, yet the focus is all on Hillary. Is it just that we have such low expectations for Trump and high expectations for Hillary?