Reddit reviews The Hunting of the President: The Ten-Year Campaign to Destroy Bill and Hillary Clinton

> Why do they hate the Clintons, and have been trying to lock them up for 25 years, but not Obama?

If you're asking a rhetorical question, then never mind. If you're really asking why, then:

The Hunting of the President: The Ten-Year Campaign to Destroy Bill and Hillary Clinton

Blinded by the Right: The Conscience of an Ex-Conservative

And if you don't think they have been going tooth and nail - or hammer and chisel - after Obama since he first ran for President, you haven't been paying attention.

The only thing I think that qualifies is a scandal was getting the FBI to investigate the travel office. What else would you say qualifies?

The Clintons were subjected to unprecedented scrutiny based largely on lies (and marital infidelity, which is not a high crime). I recommend a book like this one: http://www.amazon.com/The-Hunting-President-Ten-Year-Campaign/dp/0312273193

Here is the desktop version of your link

The other book there looks amazing & it's in stock

https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0312273193/ref=pd_aw_sim_14_1?ie=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=TXPND9DTK5EDQ8W29Q4H

Here's a review:

THE HUNTING OF THE PRESIDENT documents a sickness at the very center of this nation's soul. A few people, convinced of their exclusive ownership of the truth, proved willing to tell any lie, despoil our nation's institutions and traditions, and break laws in order to displace from power a man they hated. The assault on the president is a challenge as serious as Watergate to our nation's ability to self-government, but in this case, the cancer is on the judicial system, metastasized to the press and the Congress.
THE HUNTING OF THE PRESIDENT shows that the anti-democratic activity originated at very high levels, probably including the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, members of the DC Circuit Court of Appeals, and other officers of the court. These sworn guardians of justice perverted the principles of equity to turn the court system into their instrumentality to grasp political power. For example, the book exposes serious lies in Paula Jones' case, lies at which Judge Susan Wright winked as she judged the president solely guilty of contempt. Also, in the process of using the courts for political purposes, very basic rights guaranteed in our Constitution, including the protections of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments, have been damaged. Grand jury secrecy has been turned into a mockery, and reporters turned into informants for the prosecution. The power of money may have been used to buy testimony. The press itself is used not to report news but to influence opinion. These developments are frighteningly similar to what occurred in the Soviet Union as it slid into dictatorship.
THE HUNTING OF THE PRESIDENT shows that elected officials are not exempt from blame, either. The shame with which Newt Gingrich, Dan Burton, Alfonse D'Amato, Jesse Helms and Lauch Faircloth covered themselves is well-known, but even sadder is the participation in misdeeds by nominally independent and fair-minded Republicans such as Jim Leach. Leach used his congressional position and committee chairmanship to let now-exposed liars spin fables about Mena and Madison Guaranty. Will Leach and others ever accept that they have done terrible damage to our democratic republic and repair the breach they have opened?
THE HUNTING OF THE PRESIDENT also traces how a vast web of tax-exempt foundations (e.g., Coors, e.g., Bradley) are routinely used for partisan purposes, thereby effectively siphoning money from the Treasury, combining it with private wealth from men like Scaife and using it to betray democracy. Saddest of all, THE HUNTING OF THE PRESIDENT shows that the name of Jesus Christ has been used to spread slanders and false testimony by televangelists like Jerry Falwell and false messiahs like Sun Myung Moon.
The answer to Counsel Welch's question to the extremists exemplified in Senator Joe McCarthy, "Have you at last no shame, sir?" has been answered by THE HUNTING. We now know that these extremists have no shame. An always-vigilant citizenry, dedicated to fairness and openness of process, is the only defense against them

The only thing worse than an ignoramus is a willful, proud ignoramus. I know using Google and actually reading is an issue for you but you have completely embarrassed yourself at this point and it’s obvious you’re not interested in any truth that negates your poorly constructed worldview.

https://www.amazon.com/Hunting-President-Ten-Year-Campaign-Destroy/dp/0312273193

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/14/hillary-clinton-defeat-republicans-trump-comey

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/03/30/judicial-watch-pursuing-the-clintons-like-inspector-javert-since-before-the-millennium/?utm_term=.cf91a19098fa

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/11/tracking-the-clinton-controversies-from-whitewater-to-benghazi/396182/


https://thedailybanter.com/2016/01/hillary-gop-smears/


None of this is a secret or conspiracy theory and should be common knowledge to anyone who’s paid an iota of attention since the 90s.

In most people's reality in this subreddit Hillary Clinton is the ultimate evil in the world. Weird to me. But it's your lucky day because this is my last comment ona Clinton story. But I do advise everyone to read this book: http://www.amazon.com/The-Hunting-President-Ten-Year-Campaign/dp/0312273193?ie=UTF8&keywords=joe%20conason&qid=1459357973&ref_=sr_1_3&s=books&sr=1-3

This is nothing. This is a rehash of allegations David Hale made to the press. This doesn't actually implicate the Clintons; there are no findings in this document. Here you go.

> Is this sarcasm?

No. It's history.

> Fox News wasn't even around 25 years ago.

True. Fox didn't join the effort until 1996. But Hillary has been dogged by constant smears and lies from the right since setting foot on the national stage in 1991.

> The current onslaught of never ending bullshit really didn't get super ramped up until Sept 11 2001.

I have no idea what you are referring to here. But you might want to familiarize yourself with the actual history.

> Hillary sucks, that's why people don't like her.

I'm curious: What exactly do you base this on? The opinions you hear from your brethren on the far-right?
Because you could not be more wrong if you tried.
Sure, conservatives, wingnuts, lunatics, and psychopaths don't like Hillary. But she's been the front-runner to win the presidency since the campaign started in early 2015. She remains the favorite to beat Trump. And she has received more popular votes than Trump and every other candidate in the primaries so far.

> She's a bad politician,

I'll grant you she's not a very good campaigner.

> either a murderer

LOL. I see you've been drinking the wingnut / lunatic Kool Aide. Tasty, isn't it!?

> She laughed about the murder of Gaddafi.

Gaddafi may have had some nice policies, but he was also a brutal butcher, tyrant, despot, and dictator -- an authoritarian strongman. In other words, just the kind of person I would expect a conservative to root for.

> Libya had a higher standard of living than Japan or Brazil, and the highest in all of Africa, what a terrible regime.

What has happened in Libya is tragic, but don't pretend it was a peaceful paradise until Hillary showed up. The country was in an active state of revolution, and Gaddafi was going around the country killing civilians en masse. The US didn't do anything to help, but the disaster was well underway before we intervened to prevent some of the killing by Gaddafi.

> You are either one smoothly sarcastic poster or someone in need of a closer examination of real history.

I know the history far better than you do, my friend.