August 10, 2022 • 50 mins
From the politics of Arkansas to the heights of Presidential power, Bill and Hillary Clinton have become one of the world's most influential political power couples -- and, along the way, they've garnered a ton of allegations and accusations. But how many of these are true, and how many are smear campaigns and conspiracy theories? In part one of this two-part series, the guys dive into the world of Clinton conspiracies.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
From UFOs to psychic powers and government conspiracies. History is
riddled with unexplained events. You can turn back now or
learn the stuff they don't want you to know. A
production of I Heart Brady. Hello, welcome back to the show.
(00:26):
My name is Matt, my name is all they called
me Ben. We're joined as always with our super producer Paul.
Mission Control deconds. Most importantly, you are you, You are here,
and that makes this the stuff they don't want you
to know. Uh, folks. In a recent chat with our
pal Jake Hamrahan over a popular front UH, the subject
(00:48):
of the Clinton dynasty came up. As everybody knows longtime listeners,
Jake is a UK resident. He does excellent work in
conflict reporting, and he's got his finger on the pulse
of pretty much all thinks shady across the globe. Like
many of our fellow conspiracy realists in the audience today,
Jake has always been curious about what dirt may exist
(01:09):
in the closet of this American political dynasty. So we're
returning to that in today's episode. We're gonna introduce and
analyze some of the most longstanding accusations of the Clintons
and see whether we can separate fact from fiction here. Uh.
Note we looked at a few of these during the
Trump Clinton campaigns, where we created episodes on each respective campaign,
(01:35):
but today we're diving more in depth with the benefit
of retrospect. These stories, these theories date back decades, so
we're going to consider this a little bit of a
deeper dive into some of the more prominent ideas and accusations,
as well as what I would argue is the more
important part and introduction to the larger dangers and implications involved. Uh.
(02:01):
In the interests of full disclosure, of course, you could
technically say, and this is hilarious to me, guys, you
could technically say that three members of the Clinton family
are our coworkers. Yeah, we would play golf with Bill
every now and again. I know it's not true. We've
never met any of them, and we have nothing to
do with any of these podcasts. You can imagine I
(02:24):
heard as a massive network and we've got dozens of
executive producers and producers teams that work on these shows,
and none of us have touched either Bill, Hillary or
Chelsea's podcast. They do technically exist within the same ecosystem
of podcasts them that we do. Yeah, that's all. All
three have their own separate individual podcast. So there's no
Clinton family podcast, not yet. And I have I have
(02:48):
met Bill Clinton, but briefly, and I didn't talk with
him about Whitewater, to be clear. So that in Atlanta
when he was doing something at the Carter Center. Yeah, yeah,
I met him. I met him in Atlanta. But you know,
if you ever meet a high octane politician, unless honestly,
(03:09):
unless you're doing a pr thing with him or giving
them money, you're it's not really going to be an
in depth conversation. But my cynicism aside. Here are the
facts for anybody somehow doesn't know, uh the Here in
the United States, when you say the Clinton's your virtually
always referring to a specific political family William, Bill, Jefferson Clinton,
(03:34):
and Hillary Rodham Clinton. This can be confusing to some
people because there are not one but to completely separate
Clinton political dynasties. The other one, not related, is the
family of a founding father and former vice president, George Clinton.
He was vice president twice in the early eighteen hundreds,
(03:55):
and he's not of parliament. Funkadelic about just just not
to be confused joke for later. I'm still gonna uh.
And and his nephew, DeWitt Clinton, who was a senator
as well as serving as governor then mayor of New
York in the eighteen hundreds. Also, Bill and Hillary Clinton
are sadly not related to George Clinton, which is a
(04:16):
huge bummer to everyone. Right. I wonder if it's swung
ity votes in the opposite direction. But interestingly enough, they
are the first married couple to be nominated for president,
even though only one of them served as president. Uh.
They met before they got in politics in nineteen seventy
one when they were students at Yale Law School. They
(04:37):
met in the Yale Law School library. Four years later,
they married in nineteen seventy five, and pretty much right
after that, Uh, Bill Clinton becomes Attorney General of Arkansas
and then went on to become governor of Arkansas not
once but two times, a governor in nineteen nine eighty
(04:59):
one and then once a end from eighty three to
ninety two. Um. He's probably most known outside of being
a ball or saxophone player. Uh and all around cool guy.
I'm just kidding. He came off that way that was
sort of like his persona. You know, he's like, what
was this corn fed sex playing, you know, uh, lothario
running for president? And he was like on leno and stuff.
(05:21):
It was a whole thing. Um. Yeah, probably most well
known as being the forty second to president of these
United States, uh, serving from nineteen ninety three to two
thousand and one. And honestly, I mean even during that time,
his wife's star was rising, you know, in a big way.
I mean she was almost as influential and popular as
in they were kind of almost considered like a package deal.
(05:42):
It was pretty much an open you know, understanding. Yeah,
you're right. I just want to point out before we
move on. Bill Clinton was governor of Arkansas for a
combined total of what ten eleven years or maybe even
twelve years I guess in total when you combined it
all together, that's a long time to be the in
the executive politician of an entire state. And you you know,
(06:04):
one of the things we're gonna get into, and we're
talking about corruption, heres what happens when you are at
on in those upper echelons for so long? Like what
happens when you have so much power and um, you've
not only like climbed the ladder to get up there,
or used whatever means are at your disposal to get there. Um,
(06:24):
you you maintain that power. So that's just I just
want to point that out. That's a long time. Yeah,
it is. And that's that's an important point. I appreciate
you making that map because one of the um main
difficulties for a lot of the system of US politics
is the incentivization for short term thinking. Uh. The it
(06:51):
seems like the election cycles never really end. Uh. And
you know, you can make an argument. This is not
to support dictatorships, they're strong man, but you can make
an argument that centralized economies have a a better likelihood
of success with long term plans, right the instead of
things that are just like, why will this matter in
(07:12):
two to four years, I'll be gone. What we see
here in that long term as governor, in that long
series of terms as governor of Arkansas is an opportunity
to plan on a longer time horizon than governors in
less what are called safe positions. So, yeah, Hillary Clinton,
to your point, Knell is, when serving as first Lady
(07:36):
of Arkansas later first Lady of the United States itself,
Garners a reputation as being much more policy and politically
involved than many other previous first ladies. Um, and this
is something that you know indicates this individual's own political
ambitions behind beyond what is often considered just sort of
(07:59):
a ceremony old role. And Hillary Clinton does make good
on these ambitions. She goes on to become a New
York senator for like two thousand nine, and then she
becomes Secretary of State from two thousand nine. I think
that's very interesting because there's this long I don't know
(08:23):
if you can say it's conclusively proven, but there's this
long standing belief in the US that in the backstage
of both major political parties, when you have to front
runners who you know, who are going head to head
in a primary or something, and only one of them
can run on the party ticket for president, uh, they
(08:45):
make a backroom deal where they say, okay, give me
another position like secretary of state. Right. Uh, this is
something you also see. I believe it was John Kerry
who was mentioned in this guard earlier. But still this
is a power couple. Right. That's a lot of influence
for a single couple to have in a purported meritocracy,
(09:09):
no matter even if they're absolute paragons of virtue and
the best people ever. Right, even if it's like Mr
Rogers and uh the um the lady who did lamb chop.
If if even those wholesome seeming people they have a
lot of power, you have to wonder about the opportunities
(09:29):
that that power brings. Uh. And while they're to be fair,
while their relationship may be unique in the halls of power,
it is crucial to note this is far far from
the first time members of the very same family occupied
government positions that wielded tremendous influence. On the left. You
can think of the Kennedy brothers, who are of course
(09:52):
later assassinated, or you can think of the Bush dynasty.
So there's something else here when almost like a study
of media, a little bit of media forensics, the Clinton
presidency took place during a time of growing great political divide.
It was a harbinger, obviously with the benefit of retrospect
(10:13):
for what was to come afterwards in American politics. And
during the Clinton presidency we see, um, we see this
rise of the twenty four hour news cycle. Right. This
means that a lot of things that would have nailed
an earlier administration but we're conveniently swept under the rug,
(10:37):
were out in the growing court of public opinion. And
you have to ask yourself, where there are more skeletons
in the closet of this administration or where they're just
better flashlights in the hands of the public. Isn't that
funny to think back on, Like CNN was really king
at this time, and it wasn't as partisan. It seemed
(10:59):
like Fox News wasn't really a thing yet. Wasn't like
CNN went after the Clintons, you know, even being considered
a left leaning you know, news organization. There's plenty of
coverage of the Clinton scandals and impeachment trials and all
of that stuff. Like, it wasn't like they gave him
a pass. It was very much laser focused. Yeah, Fox
(11:21):
News gets its start in so right around this stretch
of time, we're describing where the landscape of media changes. This,
of course, is not to be taken as um be
as us being apologist for this administration in any way.
It's just important to note that the ways in which
(11:42):
the public, uh, we're able to encounter controversies and pr
and propaganda regarding politicians in general, it fundamentally changed during
this time, as we'll see a lot of things fundamentally changed. Yeah,
I'm thinking back to the Kennedy brothers. Just how much
of a stink there was in the press when uh
(12:04):
President Kennedy attempted to get his brother in into that
position of Attorney general and how you know, he was
appointed and didn't seem to have any credentials whatsoever, and
yet it was still going to go through because the
president had the power to do so, and he had
enough people to just look the other way or say
that's fine, that's fine, Mr Kennedy. Uh, we'll just allow
(12:26):
that to happen. I mean, there was a ton of
press coverage on that and a lot of anger that
was that or like at least I've seen a lot
of the articles from the time that we're stating, hey,
this is this feels like corruption. This is odd, this
feels like corruption. But it wasn't on everybody's television, right.
You had to pick up the newspaper. You had to
read the article that was in the Wall Street General,
(12:47):
the New York Times or something to to understand what
was going on and pay attention to it. It's not
like we were bombarded by it. When you get to
the Clinton's right, yeah. Yeah. And then also you know,
a later iteration for example of that would be uh
during the late Trump administration when the president would hire
(13:08):
family members for various various other positions. So this is
something that does happen, and the question is should it
happen in a democracy, in a meritocracy. If you look
at the definition of meritocracy, it could happen, but the
odds are against it. It's usually more likely that these
(13:30):
sorts of familial relations transforming into professional associations are based
on nepotism rather than objective merit. So, yeah, so there
are problems. Everybody knows, uh. The it's no surprise to
that this era, this Clinton administration era, and the decades
that followed would lead to a lot of controversies. And again,
(13:54):
to be fair, whenever we talk about presidential or political controversy,
we have to acknowledge that this is not hyperbolee folks.
Every single US president since day one, since back in
back in the formation of the US, they've run into controversy. Um.
(14:14):
In fact, you can you can easily see this when
you go to you know, a Wikipedia article or something.
Most of those controversies now are going to be unfamiliar
to a lot of people, especially the further back you go,
unless it's something really big like the Civil War. Uh.
You could argue that this this um package deal of
(14:35):
presidency and controversy is an inherent consequence of the position.
I mean, on a global level, multitude to other world
leaders are inevitably gonna object to something an administration does,
probably because their geopolitical goals differ and domestically actually stay
on that point for a second. Uh. If if other
(14:59):
world leaders own object then it's increasingly common for domestic
opponents to say this means you're in the pocket of
that country. Whether or not that's true various case by case.
The mileage may vary, but domestically they're still going to
be controversy. Also, Republicans aren't always happy when their candidate
(15:19):
is in power. They may object to certain policies or issues,
or find things, you know, um morally or fiscally objectionable,
and the same can be said of Democrats. Someone will say,
I'm a centrist, this politician is too far left of
what I like, or too far right, or I'm I
(15:41):
am a far left. Identify far left, I had to
vote for a Democrat, because in this broken system, that's
the only that's the closest chance I'll have to having
my views represented. Well, I mean in this era, like
the Republican Party wasn't what it is now, and or
was the Democratic Party. They just felt a little different.
(16:03):
It seems like the Republicans weren't quite as far right
for sure, and maybe the Democrats weren't quite as far left.
They were a little more centrist or I don't know.
Can I just remind me I was a kid, but
I do seem to remember it didn't seem quite as divisive.
But like you said, Ben, this was sort of the
beginning of that, you know, period of political divide. That's
(16:24):
when media starts pulling us apart at the right. I mean, right,
I mean you think about how in the bubble we
are and divided today with our social media streams and
with the media we choose to ingest and what served
to us based on our choices. I mean, this is
the beginning of it. This is really where it starts,
where you get to choose. Oh, I like this one
(16:46):
more than the other one. Now I just get this news. Yeah,
that's the good point, Like That's that's what I'm seeing too.
You know, the media landscape changes fundamentally. Uh. And now
it's commonly accepted. It's ugly, but it's true. It's commonly
accepted in the United States that as a broken, de
facto two party system, each side of the aisle will
(17:08):
do its level best to destroy the reputation and stym
me the goals of the other party, even if those
goals are something the majority of the US public supports. Right,
It's it's um. If i can't win, I'm throwing the
monopoly board and I'm breaking all the you know, I'm
breaking all the all the chess pieces, almost like taking
(17:30):
you down with me. Right. Yeah. And so for an
example of this, as we record at the end of July,
just this week, UH, there was a bill that was
meant to expand healthcare for veterans who have been exposed
to various dangerous substances. And it had passed in the House,
(17:53):
and it had earlier been all fine in the Senate,
but then members of the GOP blocked the bill uh
and called it a surprise. They have various rationalizations for it.
Some of those members who have previously proved went back
and and cut it off, and there are statements about
how that was done by some simply to affect the
(18:14):
poll numbers of the current administration. John Stewart has a
great speech on this. It is the most exciting thing
that c SPAN has aired in several years. Do check
it out. I also want to point out that Stewart
is on record saying he will never run for political
office because he thinks it's BS man. It's a real
shame because it doesn't matter what your political leanings are.
(18:37):
If you just listen to the things Stewart says in
that speech, I think you will agree with them. Seriously,
it doesn't matter like where you lean, because it's just
about a It's about a couple of politicians that are
making a decision for probably personal gain or gain of
you know, certain members of a party, or a perceived
(19:01):
gain for a party on the whole. Uh, at the
expense of all of these veterans recommended. Yeah, and you
know you can based on what we've outlined here, and
I agree that Stewart's points are a political Based on
what we've outlined here, you can make a solid argument
(19:22):
on that precedent that future presidents on that precedent that
future precedents. There we go. Yeah, thanks. Whatever their political
leanings might be, they're gonna encounter controversy in the future.
In fact, Bill Clinton is pretty extraordinary because he left
office with the highest approval rating of any outgoing president
(19:42):
in more than half a century. And of course that
does not mean everybody loved the guy. During both their
political careers, Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton navigated a range
of controversies and accusations. You can check out our episode
about the Hillary Clinton campaign to get a look at
how those were weaponized in some ways. But some of
(20:03):
them are proven. They're true, they happened, they're not conspiracies.
Sometimes just being a good old boy, cool guys kind
of makes you bulletproof in the public guy. But it
was also a period of prosperity. I mean, it just
looked look back on I just remember again being a kid,
it feeling like things were like going well, you know.
I think largely his legacy was cemented by the fact that,
(20:25):
like it wasn't wartime. You know, the economy has been
pretty good shape, so you know, what's what's a blue
dress between friends? There was a budget surplus as well,
which is increasingly rare. Yes, it's just so funny to
me the concept that it wasn't wartime, right theoretically, but
then think about, like, you know, there's all kinds of
(20:48):
engagements that were occurring. It's just it wasn't I don't know,
it wasn't on everyone's mind in the same way. I mean,
think about Yemen now. Yemen right now, presidential administrations have changed.
Do you think that people in Yemen are looking at
those missiles and going, oh, good, there's a different there's
a different name on this one. Great go USA. They're
(21:13):
not the wars continue, of course, they're ongoing. They never stopped.
We've always been at war with Eurasia or East Asia
or whichever one. But I also think it really is
indicative of like how biased and kind of misogynists, like
the public consciousness is around politicians, because it's like, you know,
Hillary Clinton got pilloried for like any number of of
(21:34):
of much lesser in fractions, or just like people not
liking her vibe, or like, you know, she looked a
little sickly one day, I had a cold, and everyone's
just like all over like she was dying. But like
Bill Clinton got impeached and perjured himself, you know, and
like literally had an affair and all kinds of Selasia
stuff came out, and yet he is pretty much remembered fondly.
(21:56):
It's just very interesting. Yeah. In addition to having an
historically high exit exit approval rating, UH, Bill Clinton is
also the second US president to be impeached in history.
The first was Andrew Johnson. So you know, as you know,
Clinton was not removed from office, but he definitely gotten
(22:20):
into national hot water because of the Monica Lewinsky scandal,
which the damage control on that was terrible, right, and
did result in perjury. Uh the scandal for any younger
people in the audience don't remember. Uh describes how it
was revealed he had an extra marital affair. From some
(22:43):
of the public statements he makes regarding this are hilarious
in their legal ease, Like what is sex? Right up
there with I didn't detail, you know, wasn't there a
whole one of the meaning of the a very semantically
kind of quibbling discussion about a word like a simple
word like an article? Was that? What was that around?
(23:04):
Which word was that? I believe it was? Is? That's
right exactly? Is? But all that stemmed from a sexual
harassment lawsuit that was that was put against him by
Paula Jones who worked with him in Arkansas, and then,
of course UH when he subject to those impeachment proceedings
(23:28):
during like the Ken Star era in n Later, Hillary
Clinton is implicated in numerous scandals, accused of numerous things,
and in a large part due to them, the motivations
of the Trump campaign, from speculation regarding improper use of
emails to uh ideas of letting big Ghazi occur, to
(23:52):
allegations about crooked financial donations and more. Then, of course,
is Whitewater. We'll get to that in a second. So
it would be regardless of um, how you feel personally,
whether you have a a bone to pick or a
flagged wave about either of these individuals, it would be
misleading to say that either have a spotless record, especially
(24:15):
in the court of public opinion. But the thing is,
according to critics, there's much much more to the story.
The Clinton's, they argue, are much more dangerous than the
public is willing to admit. What are we talking about?
Will tell you after a word from our sponsor, here's
(24:38):
where it gets crazy, buddy. Okay, we're going into the
deep water. My ruffle a few feathers. When people talk
about Clinton corruption and scandals, they're usually not talking about
the proven stuff. They're usually not talking about the Lewinsky scandal. Uh,
They're talking about other things that are largely considered um
(24:59):
conspira c theories or considered cover ups, sometimes both. There's
a ven diagram here. One of the biggest ones is
the Clinton body count. You've heard of it. Several of
our fellow listeners have written and asking about this, and
we talked about this briefly in our episode. I want
(25:20):
to say part two Election Conspiracies. Oh yeah, the CBC.
It's the concept that potentially the Clinton's, at least according
to these allegations, have had over fifty people killed, which
is very salacious. A lot of the allegations you'll see
about this thing are um paper thin at best, but
it is something worth looking into. We're talking about political
(25:43):
assassinations here from people who got too close to the
Clintons or new too much. And uh, you know, the
this is an American phenomenon, or it's common in American
culture because we know that objectively crimes can be covered
up have been covered up, and there are generation's worth
(26:07):
of theories that the powerful have assassinated those speaking truth
to them or exposing things they would rather stay hidden.
This starts a really gather steam. A guy named William Danemeyer,
who was a former representative, he writes a letter to
(26:30):
leaders of Congress and he says, look, there are twenty
four people who have died quote under other than natural circumstances.
And I can tell you they're connected to the Clintons
one way or another, not all in the same way.
And there needs to be a hearing about this. There
needs to be an investigation his list of suspicious deaths,
(26:52):
as he called them. It turns out if you look
at kind of the genesis of this, uh the if
you trace the etymology of it like you would trace
the origin of a word, it all comes from one
list compiled by a former Indianapolis lawyer named Linda Thompson.
The year before the letter goes out, Thompson quits her
(27:14):
general practice to run a for profit group called American
Justice Federation. What do we say about innocuous names? So
so American Justice Federation there are for profit group. They
they're very much champions of pro gun causes and are
(27:35):
known for propagating a lot of conspiracy theories, kind of
info war style, through a online bulletin board, a radio show,
and then of course sales of newsletters and videos. So
we found the source that this arrives from. But like
you said, Matt, how did it balloon to fifty plus people? Um?
(27:59):
And also another question, how does this accusation have so
much staying powered still kicking around today? A UM Georgia
politician named Marjorie Taylor Green recently co signed it. Can
I say really quickly? I was, I think it's a
similar thing though it's a similar talking point to bring
up this antiquated kind of anti democrat, you know, line
(28:23):
that's been debunked, uh, and just like get some attention
in the same way that other candidate was like destroyed
the gorg Georgia guidestones because they're satanic. I was just
thinking's funny, you said, Because I was thinking, and there
were other folks, there were folks in the media who were, um,
who really wanted to push this story without maybe investigating
it as much as they should have. One that really
(28:44):
stands out is news Max publisher Christopher Ruddy, now who died,
who's on this list that depends on who you ask.
There are multiple versions of the list now such that
there's not really one canonical version we could call it,
And in each death, the story goes these associates, colleagues,
(29:04):
or normal citizens were just about to testify against the Clintons,
only to die a mysterious circumstances. While the list does
have a lot of different additions and remixes, there are
several names that pop up multiple times. We talked about
a few of them previously. One example would be Vincent W. Foster,
(29:27):
former deput White House counsel. He was found dead um
right outside d C in July. There was an autopsy
that ruled he had been He died due to suicide.
He took his own life. He was shot in the mouth,
no other wounds. His death was ruled a suicide by
(29:48):
five different, five separate investigations. Yeah, but I mean, there's
still weirdness. There are guys and I can't look away
from the Vince Foster thing. It's so weird. This dude
grew up a cross the street from the Clintons. He
was very prominent in Arkansas when the Clinton when Bill
Clinton was doing his thing over there as governor, so uh.
(30:10):
And he's he's even the person who got Hillary Clinton
into the Rose Law firm that we mentioned in our
previous episode, Like he was the mentor for Hillary Clinton.
So he definitely knew about some skeletons, right, I mean
he must have just by the nature of his work
and his proximity to them. It feels weird to me.
I'm not saying that you can conclusively prove that he
(30:31):
was killed because again, of those five investigations then, but
it's still odd to me. But again, like they they
they were always bringing in people from their little rock
in our circle and and giving them jobs and replacing
people in the administration, Like there was this whole scandal
with like the travel um team or whatever or yeah,
(30:52):
where they where they replaced, you know, a kind of
unceremoniously replaced these you know, appointees or these employees there
with you know full they knew from back and little Rock.
And I spent a decent bit of the morning watching
this talk from the journalist James Stewart who wrote a
book called blood Sport that was about the kind of
Clinton uh dynasty and and all of these scandals and stuff.
(31:12):
And there's a really interesting part of the Q and
A where this various southern little rock sounded gentleman in
the audience. And it's in New York. It's at the
ninety second Street. Why, he says, you know, I gotta
tell you, so, I found your book to be a
bit of a snooze because of course this so this
is just how it's done in Arkansas. Everybody scratches each
other's backs, and you know it's in it for the cronies,
(31:35):
and you know, everyone's trying to enrich each other, and
people are just pretty bold about it. I just and
the guys like, well, sir, well you may have found
it a snooze because you're so close to this and
know all about it. Like I was talking about id
he had like a you know, mother in law's judges
and stuff like that, like all these close ties. Uh,
everyone else didn't know about it. And I certainly didn't
find it to be a snooze. But man, it's true
little rock. And and uh, you know, Arkansas politics very backscratchy.
(32:00):
And you know, you do me a favor, I'll do
you one. Not every government is Singapore, it turns out
with Foster, I want to say that part of the
part of the circumstances leading to his death are pretty
tragic and involved mental health. Uh, he was suffering from depression,
but he was very concerned that if he saw a
(32:23):
psychiatrist it would cost him his security clearance, which is
a thing that can happen to people. But we just
have to be careful because if you know, just because
someone is depressed doesn't mean they killed themselves. Right, It's
like one of those things, like it's a possibility, it
leans more credence to it, right, it's just more any
more evidence than that though, So yeah, that's why. Yeah,
(32:45):
that's what I was going to say, Like, this is
something that could be considered a factor to think about,
but it is far from a conclusive thing. And for
people who do believe that Foster was murdered or maybe
driven to suicide, which is another another idea than those
five separate investigations, to that perspective, are only gonna be
(33:07):
five different iterations of a cover up, right, So then
the question becomes one of influence. Who could have that
amount of influence over five separate investigations. This is only
one again, of fifty something people. We also mentioned seth
Rich in the past. He was murdered. Uh He was
(33:29):
a d n C Democratic National Committee staff member, and
folks started speculating that Hillary Clinton had arranged his death.
If you dig a little deeper past the headlines there,
what you'll find is the heart of that speculation is
based on a Fox News report that originally said seth
Rich was the one responsible for the wiki lease release
(33:54):
of d n C emails during that campaign. But what
a lot of people don't acknowledge is that Fox later
retracted that story. And as we know, the Fox News
of this time of it's very different from the Fox
News of And also, you know, very it's incredibly rare
(34:16):
nowadays for mass media outfits to publish retractions, right for
for a pundant to go, especially in entertainment news, which
is what foxes legally is. It's increasingly rare for one
of those pundits to say we got this wrong, which
is why you can see so many programs like Last Week, Tonight,
(34:38):
UM or Daily Show pointing out obviously contradictory statements by
some of those pundits. It's still odd for me to
think back about the set of the seth Rich story
and how explosive the John Podesta emails were. I mean,
it spawned an entire conspiracy theory like genre of pizza gate, right,
(34:59):
and and just how damaging those emails were to the
Clinton campaign in um, it did feel at the time
like somebody was going to pay for it, right, whether
politically or you know, uh, physically. Um. And then when
Seth Riche was killed, I remember being less skeptical about
(35:20):
it in the moment, about it being involved in some
way with the Clinton campaign or the Democratic Party in
some way. Uh. But looking back now from this far away,
it does feel like the connection maybe isn't as is
not as strong, especially given what you just stated about that, uh,
that Fox News story. We're gonna pause here for word
(35:42):
from our sponsors, and as long as we don't end
up on a body account, we'll be right back. And
we've returned, and again the list continues to grow. One
recent edition was Jeffrey Epstein when he died under a
(36:04):
questionable circumstances in check out our three part series on
that look. Without naming off all fifty something people brought
up in these various lists, there's one question is most
immediate to me. That's something that's worth unpacking. Given that
the US president, remember they are in general, is one
(36:25):
of the most scrutinized people in the world, like up
there with the Pope and the Queen of England. Uh.
And given that Clinton's political opponents successfully meticulously nailed down
every possible detail of anything that could take him down,
take him from power, culminating in a non political scandal
(36:48):
like an extra marital affair, why would they have not
used any one of these deaths as a perfect opportunity
to put the nail in the coffin of his career. Right?
Obviously they would have. That was part of their mission.
Why were they not able to do so? Was there
a cover up? Did someone have dirt on every single
GOP operative? Also, I want to say, in addition of Podesta,
(37:12):
that sparked another another conspiracy theory that has some even
more plausible roots, which is Wiki leaks collusion with a
couple of other third party actors. But okay, so that's
the thing. If they if it was there, if you
could prove forget thirty, forget fifty, if you could prove one,
then you could end that career. Why didn't they? Uh?
(37:34):
The other issues with this theory are, are this kind
of a numbers game. I hate to say it, any
successful politician, let alone a career politician who gets to
be the president, they're going to have a much bigger
social circle right there, in a lot more rolodexes, they
interact with many more people. And this leads me the
(37:58):
following statement, I want to see what you got. Think
this might be a little cold, but it's worth saying. Unfortunately,
at this point now our lives, everyone listening has probably
known someone who passed away through some some tragedy, right,
And it is possible then that with the right cherry
(38:18):
picking of facts, you had a motivated enemy or opponent.
How hard would it be for them to ascribe this
death to you? You know, it's again it's cold to
frame it that way, but it gives us a sense
of the possible logical fallacies here. I mean, you know,
people you know have passed away, you are connected to them.
(38:39):
How how difficult is it to curate a remix the
facts surrounding your relationship and the facts surrounding their death
such that it looks like you were somehow involved. I
think that's too crazy, No I I I think you're right,
But also it feels way more suspicious when those people
(39:00):
close to you who have died are responsible for protecting you,
like bodyguards or secret service members or people who would
witness the places you go and the people you interact with,
because it's their job to know what you're doing. When
I think that's why it feels so suspicious to everyone
when you encounter some of the concepts or even the theories,
(39:22):
no matter how loosely based they are on reality. Right
when when you when you first read it and you
first see it, you're like, oh wow, that would make
sense that bodyguard would have seen who he was with
that night. It's also easy to fall into the whole
whether it's smoked. There's fire fallacy, which you know, I mean,
it can be true, certainly, but in this situation it
doesn't necessarily feel like it holds water. Um, but be
(39:45):
you're right, man, I mean, there are people that are
in close proximity or involved in things that would be
inconvenient to you know, the Clintons, So it is easy
to kind of, you know, make that leap mentally. It's
talking specific lee, I think about the and tell me
if I'm off base here, specifically about the twelve or
so Clinton bodyguards who are deceased, and this is a
(40:10):
good opportunity for us to talk a little bit about connections.
Three of those people, Brian Haney, Timothy Saville, and William Barkley. Oh,
for Scott Reynolds as well, and I think about it.
They died in a helicopter crash in May. They were
members of something called Marine Helicopter Squadron one, responsible for
(40:31):
transporting the president. Uh. They died when they were on
a UM pretty much like a maintenance flight in a
black Hawk helicopter. Officially no evidence of sabotage, but Clinton
his association there is that he had been in that
aircraft only one time, and it was two months earlier,
(40:53):
and people know where he went. He went from the
White House to the U. S s. Theodore Roosevelt. So
how solid is that connect? You know, it's a it's
a question worth asking. Um. It's also not the first
time body counts have been used in this way. Oh.
I know, you're absolutely right, especially when you like when
you break when you look at each one individually, Like
there's a Snopes article then that you mentioned in in
(41:14):
today's outline that points to the individual you know, humans
the accounts right of each person who's listed on these bodies,
on these body counts, And if you look at it
hard enough and you actually look at the information that's
presented there in the circumstance, it gives you that feeling
of oh, there, why would these people have been killed
(41:36):
the president had just gotten into the White House. Why
would they all die in a helicopter accident like that?
Why would that be a planned thing? It doesn't make sense,
um But if you just hear about it in passing
without getting those details, it feels way more real. Yeah,
it's true, it's impactful, and it's built to be so, honestly,
and this is not saying that people who are creating
(41:57):
these lists were acting and bad faith. It may sincerely
believe what they're saying. And you know, again exercising humans
amazing gift for pattern recognition. But let's talk a little
bit about how body counts have existed in other realms
of politics in the past. I mean, I think it
it really does tails nicely into your whole point ban
(42:19):
about this the circles that these types of people you
know and habit, and just how um large they can be,
and how it's easy to draw parallels between the people
that it's to the center of such a massive and
influential circle of people. Um, it's it's easy to kind
of like pick apart, you know, oh, well, these people
were all related to the Clintons who were in the
(42:41):
center of this circle. But the circle is so big
and encompasses so many different competing interests with all different
kinds of motivations, and and and who knows, you know,
what could have caused these things, And it's just easy
to kind of like your mind to trace it directly
to the center. But you're right. Body counts are a
thing Snopes website that I think we all love dearly.
(43:01):
UM points out listing, you know, an inventory um documenting
all the allegedly suspicious quote unquote deaths of persons connected
with the assassination John F. Kennedy have been circulating for decades,
and the same techniques used to create and spread the
JFK lists have been employed in the Clinton version. Um,
it's just it's selective bias. You know, list every possible
(43:23):
dead person been, as you point out, regardless of how
you know, slight or vague that connection weight maybe, and
it's easy to chase it back to the most influential,
big fish in that pond, and in this case is
the Clinton's. Yeah, but I want to see the Nixon
and lb J body counts, like i'ven't ever delved into those.
That's that's next on my list. Yeah, I want to
(43:44):
see the Hoover body counts, the Cleveland, the Cleveland, Grover Cleveland,
that son of a guy. Uh Yeah. And then also,
all the deaths are This is just a little bit
of mechanics language in propaganda. All the deaths are framed
as mysteriarous, regardless of whether evidence may point to a
solid explanation. You can use some uh what skeptics called
(44:07):
weasel words, which I think skeptics throw that around too often.
But you can have tricky detracting language, little like Darren
Brown esque primers. Just say it's officially declared a suicide.
Officially and declared implies strong doubt, even when there's nothing
that indicates it other than the words officially and declared.
And then of course ignore information that contradicts the results.
(44:31):
You want confirmation bias. Baby, Consider that Thompson, the originator
of this idea, later admitted she had no direct evidence
of the Clinton's killing anyone. She said the deaths were
probably caused by quote people trying to control the president.
And she wouldn't say who those people were, but because
it's a juicier story to say that Clinton himself and
(44:52):
his spouse were infernal architects of a criminal empire. People
just forgot this stuff the original person set and kind
of put the story into like make it their own,
their own version of what they liked. Uh, kind of
like how in Marvel movies, Wolverine kind of becomes the uh,
the leader of the X Men, even though historically that's
(45:14):
Cyclops and Professor X. It just made for a better story.
So we did find uh. You know, you can see
extensive list and get them from a variety of sources
we recommend. But if you look at the examination the
way we did, one at a time, through various lists
and various reportings around these deaths, you'll see that a
(45:36):
lot of the connections are scanty at best. One example,
make this real quick. Mary Mahoney, former White House intern,
was gunned down while trying to stop a robbery in
the Georgetown Starbucks. There were a couple of reasons why, uh,
people believed she was on the Clinton body count. First, Uh,
(45:57):
she was a manager of the Starbucks after she was
an intern, and there were allegations that she was about
to testify regarding sexual harassment. And another piece of evidence
people believed here was that three people died and what
very much was a robbery, but nothing was taken. So
(46:17):
they thought, hey, this is a murder. There's a hit
made to look like a robbery. But what they forgot
is that if you're ever thinking at that level of sophistication,
you take something. What happened later, by the admission of
the perpetrator who was imprisoned, was that he didn't intend
(46:37):
to kill people. Mahoney tried to take the gun from him,
he fatally shot her, fatally shot the other two employees.
Realized gun shots in Georgetown, d c. Will attract attention,
so he ran because he didn't have to think. He
had time to get the register. The other piece is that, uh,
just before the Monica Lewinsky scandal breaks, a guy named
(46:59):
Mike is a cough over Newsweek drops a hint and
he says a quote former White House staffer with the
initial M is going to talk about having an affair
with Clinton. Later history would prove that the m referred
to was Monica Lewinsky, not Mary Mahoney. Look, look, this
is me speculating. This is not based in reality. I'm
(47:22):
imagining that if Bill Clinton is having some relations sexual
in nature with one intern woman, what yeah with that woman?
What about that other woman? I mean, he was pretty
notorious throughout his career for having sexual relations with women
who are not Hillary, tomcat Man seriously. So my only
(47:44):
thing is, like, you could totally see why people may
have speculated about that things, just as you said, Ben,
But um, there is a there's a version of this
where it makes total sense that someone would take out
one of these interns who was going to speak. Why
would they do that to marry and not to Monica?
Right right, So, to answer your question, Mahoney's death occurs
(48:08):
in and the Lewinsky scandal goes public in January, and
the murder of Mahoney occurs in July of so between
January and July. So, given all this information, is clear
that not all these claims on this list can be
taken in face value. But just because one theory might
(48:31):
not hold up doesn't mean there's nothing else out there. Actually,
now that we're now that we're sinking our teeth into
this folks, we are going to make this a two parter.
Typically we like to plan these in advance, but there's
a lot more to dive into the Clinton Foundation, white Water, Benghazi,
(48:53):
of course, the emails, and as we promise, what I
argue is the bigger Dane you're here, the larger implications
this sort of stuff, everything we're talking about has for
the present and the future. So we're gonna pause. We're
gonna call this part one. We're going to return in
(49:14):
a few days with part two of our deep dive
into the Clintons and corruption. Thank you so much for
tuning in. We as always can't wait to hear your opinions.
Let us know what you think. We try to be
easy to find online. Let's try. You can let us
know what you think in a number of ways on Facebook,
on Twitter, uh and you can also, you know, leave
(49:36):
a comment on our YouTube channel if you wish, our
handle at all three of those places, Conspiracy Stuff on Instagram,
if you wish, you can reach us at Conspiracy Stuff Show.
There's more that's right. I give us a call. Our
number is one eight three three st d w y
t K. When you call in, please give yourself a
cool nickname. Let us know if we can use your
(49:56):
name and voice on the air in one of our
listener mail at episodes. Uh, and you've got three minutes.
If you've got more to say than could fit in
that three minutes, why not instead give us a good
old fashioned email. We are conspiracy at iHeart radio dot com.
(50:29):
Stuff they don't want you to know is a production
of I heart Radio. For more podcasts from my heart Radio,
visit the i heart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever
you listen to your favorite shows.
From UFOs to psychic powers and government conspiracies. History is
riddled with unexplained events. You can turn back now or
learn the stuff they don't want you to know. A
production of I Heart Brady. Hello, welcome back to the show.
(00:26):
My name is Matt, my name is all they called
me Ben. We're joined as always with our super producer Paul.
Mission Control deconds. Most importantly, you are you, You are here,
and that makes this the stuff they don't want you
to know. Uh, folks. In a recent chat with our
pal Jake Hamrahan over a popular front UH, the subject
(00:48):
of the Clinton dynasty came up. As everybody knows longtime listeners,
Jake is a UK resident. He does excellent work in
conflict reporting, and he's got his finger on the pulse
of pretty much all thinks shady across the globe. Like
many of our fellow conspiracy realists in the audience today,
Jake has always been curious about what dirt may exist
(01:09):
in the closet of this American political dynasty. So we're
returning to that in today's episode. We're gonna introduce and
analyze some of the most longstanding accusations of the Clintons
and see whether we can separate fact from fiction here. Uh.
Note we looked at a few of these during the
Trump Clinton campaigns, where we created episodes on each respective campaign,
(01:35):
but today we're diving more in depth with the benefit
of retrospect. These stories, these theories date back decades, so
we're going to consider this a little bit of a
deeper dive into some of the more prominent ideas and accusations,
as well as what I would argue is the more
important part and introduction to the larger dangers and implications involved. Uh.
(02:01):
In the interests of full disclosure, of course, you could
technically say, and this is hilarious to me, guys, you
could technically say that three members of the Clinton family
are our coworkers. Yeah, we would play golf with Bill
every now and again. I know it's not true. We've
never met any of them, and we have nothing to
do with any of these podcasts. You can imagine I
(02:24):
heard as a massive network and we've got dozens of
executive producers and producers teams that work on these shows,
and none of us have touched either Bill, Hillary or
Chelsea's podcast. They do technically exist within the same ecosystem
of podcasts them that we do. Yeah, that's all. All
three have their own separate individual podcast. So there's no
Clinton family podcast, not yet. And I have I have
(02:48):
met Bill Clinton, but briefly, and I didn't talk with
him about Whitewater, to be clear. So that in Atlanta
when he was doing something at the Carter Center. Yeah, yeah,
I met him. I met him in Atlanta. But you know,
if you ever meet a high octane politician, unless honestly,
(03:09):
unless you're doing a pr thing with him or giving
them money, you're it's not really going to be an
in depth conversation. But my cynicism aside. Here are the
facts for anybody somehow doesn't know, uh the Here in
the United States, when you say the Clinton's your virtually
always referring to a specific political family William, Bill, Jefferson Clinton,
(03:34):
and Hillary Rodham Clinton. This can be confusing to some
people because there are not one but to completely separate
Clinton political dynasties. The other one, not related, is the
family of a founding father and former vice president, George Clinton.
He was vice president twice in the early eighteen hundreds,
(03:55):
and he's not of parliament. Funkadelic about just just not
to be confused joke for later. I'm still gonna uh.
And and his nephew, DeWitt Clinton, who was a senator
as well as serving as governor then mayor of New
York in the eighteen hundreds. Also, Bill and Hillary Clinton
are sadly not related to George Clinton, which is a
(04:16):
huge bummer to everyone. Right. I wonder if it's swung
ity votes in the opposite direction. But interestingly enough, they
are the first married couple to be nominated for president,
even though only one of them served as president. Uh.
They met before they got in politics in nineteen seventy
one when they were students at Yale Law School. They
(04:37):
met in the Yale Law School library. Four years later,
they married in nineteen seventy five, and pretty much right
after that, Uh, Bill Clinton becomes Attorney General of Arkansas
and then went on to become governor of Arkansas not
once but two times, a governor in nineteen nine eighty
(04:59):
one and then once a end from eighty three to
ninety two. Um. He's probably most known outside of being
a ball or saxophone player. Uh and all around cool guy.
I'm just kidding. He came off that way that was
sort of like his persona. You know, he's like, what
was this corn fed sex playing, you know, uh, lothario
running for president? And he was like on leno and stuff.
(05:21):
It was a whole thing. Um. Yeah, probably most well
known as being the forty second to president of these
United States, uh, serving from nineteen ninety three to two
thousand and one. And honestly, I mean even during that time,
his wife's star was rising, you know, in a big way.
I mean she was almost as influential and popular as
in they were kind of almost considered like a package deal.
(05:42):
It was pretty much an open you know, understanding. Yeah,
you're right. I just want to point out before we
move on. Bill Clinton was governor of Arkansas for a
combined total of what ten eleven years or maybe even
twelve years I guess in total when you combined it
all together, that's a long time to be the in
the executive politician of an entire state. And you you know,
(06:04):
one of the things we're gonna get into, and we're
talking about corruption, heres what happens when you are at
on in those upper echelons for so long? Like what
happens when you have so much power and um, you've
not only like climbed the ladder to get up there,
or used whatever means are at your disposal to get there. Um,
(06:24):
you you maintain that power. So that's just I just
want to point that out. That's a long time. Yeah,
it is. And that's that's an important point. I appreciate
you making that map because one of the um main
difficulties for a lot of the system of US politics
is the incentivization for short term thinking. Uh. The it
(06:51):
seems like the election cycles never really end. Uh. And
you know, you can make an argument. This is not
to support dictatorships, they're strong man, but you can make
an argument that centralized economies have a a better likelihood
of success with long term plans, right the instead of
things that are just like, why will this matter in
(07:12):
two to four years, I'll be gone. What we see
here in that long term as governor, in that long
series of terms as governor of Arkansas is an opportunity
to plan on a longer time horizon than governors in
less what are called safe positions. So, yeah, Hillary Clinton,
to your point, Knell is, when serving as first Lady
(07:36):
of Arkansas later first Lady of the United States itself,
Garners a reputation as being much more policy and politically
involved than many other previous first ladies. Um, and this
is something that you know indicates this individual's own political
ambitions behind beyond what is often considered just sort of
(07:59):
a ceremony old role. And Hillary Clinton does make good
on these ambitions. She goes on to become a New
York senator for like two thousand nine, and then she
becomes Secretary of State from two thousand nine. I think
that's very interesting because there's this long I don't know
(08:23):
if you can say it's conclusively proven, but there's this
long standing belief in the US that in the backstage
of both major political parties, when you have to front
runners who you know, who are going head to head
in a primary or something, and only one of them
can run on the party ticket for president, uh, they
(08:45):
make a backroom deal where they say, okay, give me
another position like secretary of state. Right. Uh, this is
something you also see. I believe it was John Kerry
who was mentioned in this guard earlier. But still this
is a power couple. Right. That's a lot of influence
for a single couple to have in a purported meritocracy,
(09:09):
no matter even if they're absolute paragons of virtue and
the best people ever. Right, even if it's like Mr
Rogers and uh the um the lady who did lamb chop.
If if even those wholesome seeming people they have a
lot of power, you have to wonder about the opportunities
(09:29):
that that power brings. Uh. And while they're to be fair,
while their relationship may be unique in the halls of power,
it is crucial to note this is far far from
the first time members of the very same family occupied
government positions that wielded tremendous influence. On the left. You
can think of the Kennedy brothers, who are of course
(09:52):
later assassinated, or you can think of the Bush dynasty.
So there's something else here when almost like a study
of media, a little bit of media forensics, the Clinton
presidency took place during a time of growing great political divide.
It was a harbinger, obviously with the benefit of retrospect
(10:13):
for what was to come afterwards in American politics. And
during the Clinton presidency we see, um, we see this
rise of the twenty four hour news cycle. Right. This
means that a lot of things that would have nailed
an earlier administration but we're conveniently swept under the rug,
(10:37):
were out in the growing court of public opinion. And
you have to ask yourself, where there are more skeletons
in the closet of this administration or where they're just
better flashlights in the hands of the public. Isn't that
funny to think back on, Like CNN was really king
at this time, and it wasn't as partisan. It seemed
(10:59):
like Fox News wasn't really a thing yet. Wasn't like
CNN went after the Clintons, you know, even being considered
a left leaning you know, news organization. There's plenty of
coverage of the Clinton scandals and impeachment trials and all
of that stuff. Like, it wasn't like they gave him
a pass. It was very much laser focused. Yeah, Fox
(11:21):
News gets its start in so right around this stretch
of time, we're describing where the landscape of media changes. This,
of course, is not to be taken as um be
as us being apologist for this administration in any way.
It's just important to note that the ways in which
(11:42):
the public, uh, we're able to encounter controversies and pr
and propaganda regarding politicians in general, it fundamentally changed during
this time, as we'll see a lot of things fundamentally changed. Yeah,
I'm thinking back to the Kennedy brothers. Just how much
of a stink there was in the press when uh
(12:04):
President Kennedy attempted to get his brother in into that
position of Attorney general and how you know, he was
appointed and didn't seem to have any credentials whatsoever, and
yet it was still going to go through because the
president had the power to do so, and he had
enough people to just look the other way or say
that's fine, that's fine, Mr Kennedy. Uh, we'll just allow
(12:26):
that to happen. I mean, there was a ton of
press coverage on that and a lot of anger that
was that or like at least I've seen a lot
of the articles from the time that we're stating, hey,
this is this feels like corruption. This is odd, this
feels like corruption. But it wasn't on everybody's television, right.
You had to pick up the newspaper. You had to
read the article that was in the Wall Street General,
(12:47):
the New York Times or something to to understand what
was going on and pay attention to it. It's not
like we were bombarded by it. When you get to
the Clinton's right, yeah. Yeah. And then also you know,
a later iteration for example of that would be uh
during the late Trump administration when the president would hire
(13:08):
family members for various various other positions. So this is
something that does happen, and the question is should it
happen in a democracy, in a meritocracy. If you look
at the definition of meritocracy, it could happen, but the
odds are against it. It's usually more likely that these
(13:30):
sorts of familial relations transforming into professional associations are based
on nepotism rather than objective merit. So, yeah, so there
are problems. Everybody knows, uh. The it's no surprise to
that this era, this Clinton administration era, and the decades
that followed would lead to a lot of controversies. And again,
(13:54):
to be fair, whenever we talk about presidential or political controversy,
we have to acknowledge that this is not hyperbolee folks.
Every single US president since day one, since back in
back in the formation of the US, they've run into controversy. Um.
(14:14):
In fact, you can you can easily see this when
you go to you know, a Wikipedia article or something.
Most of those controversies now are going to be unfamiliar
to a lot of people, especially the further back you go,
unless it's something really big like the Civil War. Uh.
You could argue that this this um package deal of
(14:35):
presidency and controversy is an inherent consequence of the position.
I mean, on a global level, multitude to other world
leaders are inevitably gonna object to something an administration does,
probably because their geopolitical goals differ and domestically actually stay
on that point for a second. Uh. If if other
(14:59):
world leaders own object then it's increasingly common for domestic
opponents to say this means you're in the pocket of
that country. Whether or not that's true various case by case.
The mileage may vary, but domestically they're still going to
be controversy. Also, Republicans aren't always happy when their candidate
(15:19):
is in power. They may object to certain policies or issues,
or find things, you know, um morally or fiscally objectionable,
and the same can be said of Democrats. Someone will say,
I'm a centrist, this politician is too far left of
what I like, or too far right, or I'm I
(15:41):
am a far left. Identify far left, I had to
vote for a Democrat, because in this broken system, that's
the only that's the closest chance I'll have to having
my views represented. Well, I mean in this era, like
the Republican Party wasn't what it is now, and or
was the Democratic Party. They just felt a little different.
(16:03):
It seems like the Republicans weren't quite as far right
for sure, and maybe the Democrats weren't quite as far left.
They were a little more centrist or I don't know.
Can I just remind me I was a kid, but
I do seem to remember it didn't seem quite as divisive.
But like you said, Ben, this was sort of the
beginning of that, you know, period of political divide. That's
(16:24):
when media starts pulling us apart at the right. I mean, right,
I mean you think about how in the bubble we
are and divided today with our social media streams and
with the media we choose to ingest and what served
to us based on our choices. I mean, this is
the beginning of it. This is really where it starts,
where you get to choose. Oh, I like this one
(16:46):
more than the other one. Now I just get this news. Yeah,
that's the good point, Like That's that's what I'm seeing too.
You know, the media landscape changes fundamentally. Uh. And now
it's commonly accepted. It's ugly, but it's true. It's commonly
accepted in the United States that as a broken, de
facto two party system, each side of the aisle will
(17:08):
do its level best to destroy the reputation and stym
me the goals of the other party, even if those
goals are something the majority of the US public supports. Right,
It's it's um. If i can't win, I'm throwing the
monopoly board and I'm breaking all the you know, I'm
breaking all the all the chess pieces, almost like taking
(17:30):
you down with me. Right. Yeah. And so for an
example of this, as we record at the end of July,
just this week, UH, there was a bill that was
meant to expand healthcare for veterans who have been exposed
to various dangerous substances. And it had passed in the House,
(17:53):
and it had earlier been all fine in the Senate,
but then members of the GOP blocked the bill uh
and called it a surprise. They have various rationalizations for it.
Some of those members who have previously proved went back
and and cut it off, and there are statements about
how that was done by some simply to affect the
(18:14):
poll numbers of the current administration. John Stewart has a
great speech on this. It is the most exciting thing
that c SPAN has aired in several years. Do check
it out. I also want to point out that Stewart
is on record saying he will never run for political
office because he thinks it's BS man. It's a real
shame because it doesn't matter what your political leanings are.
(18:37):
If you just listen to the things Stewart says in
that speech, I think you will agree with them. Seriously,
it doesn't matter like where you lean, because it's just
about a It's about a couple of politicians that are
making a decision for probably personal gain or gain of
you know, certain members of a party, or a perceived
(19:01):
gain for a party on the whole. Uh, at the
expense of all of these veterans recommended. Yeah, and you
know you can based on what we've outlined here, and
I agree that Stewart's points are a political Based on
what we've outlined here, you can make a solid argument
(19:22):
on that precedent that future presidents on that precedent that
future precedents. There we go. Yeah, thanks. Whatever their political
leanings might be, they're gonna encounter controversy in the future.
In fact, Bill Clinton is pretty extraordinary because he left
office with the highest approval rating of any outgoing president
(19:42):
in more than half a century. And of course that
does not mean everybody loved the guy. During both their
political careers, Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton navigated a range
of controversies and accusations. You can check out our episode
about the Hillary Clinton campaign to get a look at
how those were weaponized in some ways. But some of
(20:03):
them are proven. They're true, they happened, they're not conspiracies.
Sometimes just being a good old boy, cool guys kind
of makes you bulletproof in the public guy. But it
was also a period of prosperity. I mean, it just
looked look back on I just remember again being a kid,
it feeling like things were like going well, you know.
I think largely his legacy was cemented by the fact that,
(20:25):
like it wasn't wartime. You know, the economy has been
pretty good shape, so you know, what's what's a blue
dress between friends? There was a budget surplus as well,
which is increasingly rare. Yes, it's just so funny to
me the concept that it wasn't wartime, right theoretically, but
then think about, like, you know, there's all kinds of
(20:48):
engagements that were occurring. It's just it wasn't I don't know,
it wasn't on everyone's mind in the same way. I mean,
think about Yemen now. Yemen right now, presidential administrations have changed.
Do you think that people in Yemen are looking at
those missiles and going, oh, good, there's a different there's
a different name on this one. Great go USA. They're
(21:13):
not the wars continue, of course, they're ongoing. They never stopped.
We've always been at war with Eurasia or East Asia
or whichever one. But I also think it really is
indicative of like how biased and kind of misogynists, like
the public consciousness is around politicians, because it's like, you know,
Hillary Clinton got pilloried for like any number of of
(21:34):
of much lesser in fractions, or just like people not
liking her vibe, or like, you know, she looked a
little sickly one day, I had a cold, and everyone's
just like all over like she was dying. But like
Bill Clinton got impeached and perjured himself, you know, and
like literally had an affair and all kinds of Selasia
stuff came out, and yet he is pretty much remembered fondly.
(21:56):
It's just very interesting. Yeah. In addition to having an
historically high exit exit approval rating, UH, Bill Clinton is
also the second US president to be impeached in history.
The first was Andrew Johnson. So you know, as you know,
Clinton was not removed from office, but he definitely gotten
(22:20):
into national hot water because of the Monica Lewinsky scandal,
which the damage control on that was terrible, right, and
did result in perjury. Uh the scandal for any younger
people in the audience don't remember. Uh describes how it
was revealed he had an extra marital affair. From some
(22:43):
of the public statements he makes regarding this are hilarious
in their legal ease, Like what is sex? Right up
there with I didn't detail, you know, wasn't there a
whole one of the meaning of the a very semantically
kind of quibbling discussion about a word like a simple
word like an article? Was that? What was that around?
(23:04):
Which word was that? I believe it was? Is? That's
right exactly? Is? But all that stemmed from a sexual
harassment lawsuit that was that was put against him by
Paula Jones who worked with him in Arkansas, and then,
of course UH when he subject to those impeachment proceedings
(23:28):
during like the Ken Star era in n Later, Hillary
Clinton is implicated in numerous scandals, accused of numerous things,
and in a large part due to them, the motivations
of the Trump campaign, from speculation regarding improper use of
emails to uh ideas of letting big Ghazi occur, to
(23:52):
allegations about crooked financial donations and more. Then, of course,
is Whitewater. We'll get to that in a second. So
it would be regardless of um, how you feel personally,
whether you have a a bone to pick or a
flagged wave about either of these individuals, it would be
misleading to say that either have a spotless record, especially
(24:15):
in the court of public opinion. But the thing is,
according to critics, there's much much more to the story.
The Clinton's, they argue, are much more dangerous than the
public is willing to admit. What are we talking about?
Will tell you after a word from our sponsor, here's
(24:38):
where it gets crazy, buddy. Okay, we're going into the
deep water. My ruffle a few feathers. When people talk
about Clinton corruption and scandals, they're usually not talking about
the proven stuff. They're usually not talking about the Lewinsky scandal. Uh,
They're talking about other things that are largely considered um
(24:59):
conspira c theories or considered cover ups, sometimes both. There's
a ven diagram here. One of the biggest ones is
the Clinton body count. You've heard of it. Several of
our fellow listeners have written and asking about this, and
we talked about this briefly in our episode. I want
(25:20):
to say part two Election Conspiracies. Oh yeah, the CBC.
It's the concept that potentially the Clinton's, at least according
to these allegations, have had over fifty people killed, which
is very salacious. A lot of the allegations you'll see
about this thing are um paper thin at best, but
it is something worth looking into. We're talking about political
(25:43):
assassinations here from people who got too close to the
Clintons or new too much. And uh, you know, the
this is an American phenomenon, or it's common in American
culture because we know that objectively crimes can be covered
up have been covered up, and there are generation's worth
(26:07):
of theories that the powerful have assassinated those speaking truth
to them or exposing things they would rather stay hidden.
This starts a really gather steam. A guy named William Danemeyer,
who was a former representative, he writes a letter to
(26:30):
leaders of Congress and he says, look, there are twenty
four people who have died quote under other than natural circumstances.
And I can tell you they're connected to the Clintons
one way or another, not all in the same way.
And there needs to be a hearing about this. There
needs to be an investigation his list of suspicious deaths,
(26:52):
as he called them. It turns out if you look
at kind of the genesis of this, uh the if
you trace the etymology of it like you would trace
the origin of a word, it all comes from one
list compiled by a former Indianapolis lawyer named Linda Thompson.
The year before the letter goes out, Thompson quits her
(27:14):
general practice to run a for profit group called American
Justice Federation. What do we say about innocuous names? So
so American Justice Federation there are for profit group. They
they're very much champions of pro gun causes and are
(27:35):
known for propagating a lot of conspiracy theories, kind of
info war style, through a online bulletin board, a radio show,
and then of course sales of newsletters and videos. So
we found the source that this arrives from. But like
you said, Matt, how did it balloon to fifty plus people? Um?
(27:59):
And also another question, how does this accusation have so
much staying powered still kicking around today? A UM Georgia
politician named Marjorie Taylor Green recently co signed it. Can
I say really quickly? I was, I think it's a
similar thing though it's a similar talking point to bring
up this antiquated kind of anti democrat, you know, line
(28:23):
that's been debunked, uh, and just like get some attention
in the same way that other candidate was like destroyed
the gorg Georgia guidestones because they're satanic. I was just
thinking's funny, you said, Because I was thinking, and there
were other folks, there were folks in the media who were, um,
who really wanted to push this story without maybe investigating
it as much as they should have. One that really
(28:44):
stands out is news Max publisher Christopher Ruddy, now who died,
who's on this list that depends on who you ask.
There are multiple versions of the list now such that
there's not really one canonical version we could call it,
And in each death, the story goes these associates, colleagues,
(29:04):
or normal citizens were just about to testify against the Clintons,
only to die a mysterious circumstances. While the list does
have a lot of different additions and remixes, there are
several names that pop up multiple times. We talked about
a few of them previously. One example would be Vincent W. Foster,
(29:27):
former deput White House counsel. He was found dead um
right outside d C in July. There was an autopsy
that ruled he had been He died due to suicide.
He took his own life. He was shot in the mouth,
no other wounds. His death was ruled a suicide by
(29:48):
five different, five separate investigations. Yeah, but I mean, there's
still weirdness. There are guys and I can't look away
from the Vince Foster thing. It's so weird. This dude
grew up a cross the street from the Clintons. He
was very prominent in Arkansas when the Clinton when Bill
Clinton was doing his thing over there as governor, so uh.
(30:10):
And he's he's even the person who got Hillary Clinton
into the Rose Law firm that we mentioned in our
previous episode, Like he was the mentor for Hillary Clinton.
So he definitely knew about some skeletons, right, I mean
he must have just by the nature of his work
and his proximity to them. It feels weird to me.
I'm not saying that you can conclusively prove that he
(30:31):
was killed because again, of those five investigations then, but
it's still odd to me. But again, like they they
they were always bringing in people from their little rock
in our circle and and giving them jobs and replacing
people in the administration, Like there was this whole scandal
with like the travel um team or whatever or yeah,
(30:52):
where they where they replaced, you know, a kind of
unceremoniously replaced these you know, appointees or these employees there
with you know full they knew from back and little Rock.
And I spent a decent bit of the morning watching
this talk from the journalist James Stewart who wrote a
book called blood Sport that was about the kind of
Clinton uh dynasty and and all of these scandals and stuff.
(31:12):
And there's a really interesting part of the Q and
A where this various southern little rock sounded gentleman in
the audience. And it's in New York. It's at the
ninety second Street. Why, he says, you know, I gotta
tell you, so, I found your book to be a
bit of a snooze because of course this so this
is just how it's done in Arkansas. Everybody scratches each
other's backs, and you know it's in it for the cronies,
(31:35):
and you know, everyone's trying to enrich each other, and
people are just pretty bold about it. I just and
the guys like, well, sir, well you may have found
it a snooze because you're so close to this and
know all about it. Like I was talking about id
he had like a you know, mother in law's judges
and stuff like that, like all these close ties. Uh,
everyone else didn't know about it. And I certainly didn't
find it to be a snooze. But man, it's true
little rock. And and uh, you know, Arkansas politics very backscratchy.
(32:00):
And you know, you do me a favor, I'll do
you one. Not every government is Singapore, it turns out
with Foster, I want to say that part of the
part of the circumstances leading to his death are pretty
tragic and involved mental health. Uh, he was suffering from depression,
but he was very concerned that if he saw a
(32:23):
psychiatrist it would cost him his security clearance, which is
a thing that can happen to people. But we just
have to be careful because if you know, just because
someone is depressed doesn't mean they killed themselves. Right, It's
like one of those things, like it's a possibility, it
leans more credence to it, right, it's just more any
more evidence than that though, So yeah, that's why. Yeah,
(32:45):
that's what I was going to say, Like, this is
something that could be considered a factor to think about,
but it is far from a conclusive thing. And for
people who do believe that Foster was murdered or maybe
driven to suicide, which is another another idea than those
five separate investigations, to that perspective, are only gonna be
(33:07):
five different iterations of a cover up, right, So then
the question becomes one of influence. Who could have that
amount of influence over five separate investigations. This is only
one again, of fifty something people. We also mentioned seth
Rich in the past. He was murdered. Uh He was
(33:29):
a d n C Democratic National Committee staff member, and
folks started speculating that Hillary Clinton had arranged his death.
If you dig a little deeper past the headlines there,
what you'll find is the heart of that speculation is
based on a Fox News report that originally said seth
Rich was the one responsible for the wiki lease release
(33:54):
of d n C emails during that campaign. But what
a lot of people don't acknowledge is that Fox later
retracted that story. And as we know, the Fox News
of this time of it's very different from the Fox
News of And also, you know, very it's incredibly rare
(34:16):
nowadays for mass media outfits to publish retractions, right for
for a pundant to go, especially in entertainment news, which
is what foxes legally is. It's increasingly rare for one
of those pundits to say we got this wrong, which
is why you can see so many programs like Last Week, Tonight,
(34:38):
UM or Daily Show pointing out obviously contradictory statements by
some of those pundits. It's still odd for me to
think back about the set of the seth Rich story
and how explosive the John Podesta emails were. I mean,
it spawned an entire conspiracy theory like genre of pizza gate, right,
(34:59):
and and just how damaging those emails were to the
Clinton campaign in um, it did feel at the time
like somebody was going to pay for it, right, whether
politically or you know, uh, physically. Um. And then when
Seth Riche was killed, I remember being less skeptical about
(35:20):
it in the moment, about it being involved in some
way with the Clinton campaign or the Democratic Party in
some way. Uh. But looking back now from this far away,
it does feel like the connection maybe isn't as is
not as strong, especially given what you just stated about that, uh,
that Fox News story. We're gonna pause here for word
(35:42):
from our sponsors, and as long as we don't end
up on a body account, we'll be right back. And
we've returned, and again the list continues to grow. One
recent edition was Jeffrey Epstein when he died under a
(36:04):
questionable circumstances in check out our three part series on
that look. Without naming off all fifty something people brought
up in these various lists, there's one question is most
immediate to me. That's something that's worth unpacking. Given that
the US president, remember they are in general, is one
(36:25):
of the most scrutinized people in the world, like up
there with the Pope and the Queen of England. Uh.
And given that Clinton's political opponents successfully meticulously nailed down
every possible detail of anything that could take him down,
take him from power, culminating in a non political scandal
(36:48):
like an extra marital affair, why would they have not
used any one of these deaths as a perfect opportunity
to put the nail in the coffin of his career. Right?
Obviously they would have. That was part of their mission.
Why were they not able to do so? Was there
a cover up? Did someone have dirt on every single
GOP operative? Also, I want to say, in addition of Podesta,
(37:12):
that sparked another another conspiracy theory that has some even
more plausible roots, which is Wiki leaks collusion with a
couple of other third party actors. But okay, so that's
the thing. If they if it was there, if you
could prove forget thirty, forget fifty, if you could prove one,
then you could end that career. Why didn't they? Uh?
(37:34):
The other issues with this theory are, are this kind
of a numbers game. I hate to say it, any
successful politician, let alone a career politician who gets to
be the president, they're going to have a much bigger
social circle right there, in a lot more rolodexes, they
interact with many more people. And this leads me the
(37:58):
following statement, I want to see what you got. Think
this might be a little cold, but it's worth saying. Unfortunately,
at this point now our lives, everyone listening has probably
known someone who passed away through some some tragedy, right,
And it is possible then that with the right cherry
(38:18):
picking of facts, you had a motivated enemy or opponent.
How hard would it be for them to ascribe this
death to you? You know, it's again it's cold to
frame it that way, but it gives us a sense
of the possible logical fallacies here. I mean, you know,
people you know have passed away, you are connected to them.
(38:39):
How how difficult is it to curate a remix the
facts surrounding your relationship and the facts surrounding their death
such that it looks like you were somehow involved. I
think that's too crazy, No I I I think you're right,
But also it feels way more suspicious when those people
(39:00):
close to you who have died are responsible for protecting you,
like bodyguards or secret service members or people who would
witness the places you go and the people you interact with,
because it's their job to know what you're doing. When
I think that's why it feels so suspicious to everyone
when you encounter some of the concepts or even the theories,
(39:22):
no matter how loosely based they are on reality. Right
when when you when you first read it and you
first see it, you're like, oh wow, that would make
sense that bodyguard would have seen who he was with
that night. It's also easy to fall into the whole
whether it's smoked. There's fire fallacy, which you know, I mean,
it can be true, certainly, but in this situation it
doesn't necessarily feel like it holds water. Um, but be
(39:45):
you're right, man, I mean, there are people that are
in close proximity or involved in things that would be
inconvenient to you know, the Clintons, So it is easy
to kind of, you know, make that leap mentally. It's
talking specific lee, I think about the and tell me
if I'm off base here, specifically about the twelve or
so Clinton bodyguards who are deceased, and this is a
(40:10):
good opportunity for us to talk a little bit about connections.
Three of those people, Brian Haney, Timothy Saville, and William Barkley. Oh,
for Scott Reynolds as well, and I think about it.
They died in a helicopter crash in May. They were
members of something called Marine Helicopter Squadron one, responsible for
(40:31):
transporting the president. Uh. They died when they were on
a UM pretty much like a maintenance flight in a
black Hawk helicopter. Officially no evidence of sabotage, but Clinton
his association there is that he had been in that
aircraft only one time, and it was two months earlier,
(40:53):
and people know where he went. He went from the
White House to the U. S s. Theodore Roosevelt. So
how solid is that connect? You know, it's a it's
a question worth asking. Um. It's also not the first
time body counts have been used in this way. Oh.
I know, you're absolutely right, especially when you like when
you break when you look at each one individually, Like
there's a Snopes article then that you mentioned in in
(41:14):
today's outline that points to the individual you know, humans
the accounts right of each person who's listed on these bodies,
on these body counts, And if you look at it
hard enough and you actually look at the information that's
presented there in the circumstance, it gives you that feeling
of oh, there, why would these people have been killed
(41:36):
the president had just gotten into the White House. Why
would they all die in a helicopter accident like that?
Why would that be a planned thing? It doesn't make sense,
um But if you just hear about it in passing
without getting those details, it feels way more real. Yeah,
it's true, it's impactful, and it's built to be so, honestly,
and this is not saying that people who are creating
(41:57):
these lists were acting and bad faith. It may sincerely
believe what they're saying. And you know, again exercising humans
amazing gift for pattern recognition. But let's talk a little
bit about how body counts have existed in other realms
of politics in the past. I mean, I think it
it really does tails nicely into your whole point ban
(42:19):
about this the circles that these types of people you
know and habit, and just how um large they can be,
and how it's easy to draw parallels between the people
that it's to the center of such a massive and
influential circle of people. Um, it's it's easy to kind
of like pick apart, you know, oh, well, these people
were all related to the Clintons who were in the
(42:41):
center of this circle. But the circle is so big
and encompasses so many different competing interests with all different
kinds of motivations, and and and who knows, you know,
what could have caused these things, And it's just easy
to kind of like your mind to trace it directly
to the center. But you're right. Body counts are a
thing Snopes website that I think we all love dearly.
(43:01):
UM points out listing, you know, an inventory um documenting
all the allegedly suspicious quote unquote deaths of persons connected
with the assassination John F. Kennedy have been circulating for decades,
and the same techniques used to create and spread the
JFK lists have been employed in the Clinton version. Um,
it's just it's selective bias. You know, list every possible
(43:23):
dead person been, as you point out, regardless of how
you know, slight or vague that connection weight maybe, and
it's easy to chase it back to the most influential,
big fish in that pond, and in this case is
the Clinton's. Yeah, but I want to see the Nixon
and lb J body counts, like i'ven't ever delved into those.
That's that's next on my list. Yeah, I want to
(43:44):
see the Hoover body counts, the Cleveland, the Cleveland, Grover Cleveland,
that son of a guy. Uh Yeah. And then also,
all the deaths are This is just a little bit
of mechanics language in propaganda. All the deaths are framed
as mysteriarous, regardless of whether evidence may point to a
solid explanation. You can use some uh what skeptics called
(44:07):
weasel words, which I think skeptics throw that around too often.
But you can have tricky detracting language, little like Darren
Brown esque primers. Just say it's officially declared a suicide.
Officially and declared implies strong doubt, even when there's nothing
that indicates it other than the words officially and declared.
And then of course ignore information that contradicts the results.
(44:31):
You want confirmation bias. Baby, Consider that Thompson, the originator
of this idea, later admitted she had no direct evidence
of the Clinton's killing anyone. She said the deaths were
probably caused by quote people trying to control the president.
And she wouldn't say who those people were, but because
it's a juicier story to say that Clinton himself and
(44:52):
his spouse were infernal architects of a criminal empire. People
just forgot this stuff the original person set and kind
of put the story into like make it their own,
their own version of what they liked. Uh, kind of
like how in Marvel movies, Wolverine kind of becomes the uh,
the leader of the X Men, even though historically that's
(45:14):
Cyclops and Professor X. It just made for a better story.
So we did find uh. You know, you can see
extensive list and get them from a variety of sources
we recommend. But if you look at the examination the
way we did, one at a time, through various lists
and various reportings around these deaths, you'll see that a
(45:36):
lot of the connections are scanty at best. One example,
make this real quick. Mary Mahoney, former White House intern,
was gunned down while trying to stop a robbery in
the Georgetown Starbucks. There were a couple of reasons why, uh,
people believed she was on the Clinton body count. First, Uh,
(45:57):
she was a manager of the Starbucks after she was
an intern, and there were allegations that she was about
to testify regarding sexual harassment. And another piece of evidence
people believed here was that three people died and what
very much was a robbery, but nothing was taken. So
(46:17):
they thought, hey, this is a murder. There's a hit
made to look like a robbery. But what they forgot
is that if you're ever thinking at that level of sophistication,
you take something. What happened later, by the admission of
the perpetrator who was imprisoned, was that he didn't intend
(46:37):
to kill people. Mahoney tried to take the gun from him,
he fatally shot her, fatally shot the other two employees.
Realized gun shots in Georgetown, d c. Will attract attention,
so he ran because he didn't have to think. He
had time to get the register. The other piece is that, uh,
just before the Monica Lewinsky scandal breaks, a guy named
(46:59):
Mike is a cough over Newsweek drops a hint and
he says a quote former White House staffer with the
initial M is going to talk about having an affair
with Clinton. Later history would prove that the m referred
to was Monica Lewinsky, not Mary Mahoney. Look, look, this
is me speculating. This is not based in reality. I'm
(47:22):
imagining that if Bill Clinton is having some relations sexual
in nature with one intern woman, what yeah with that woman?
What about that other woman? I mean, he was pretty
notorious throughout his career for having sexual relations with women
who are not Hillary, tomcat Man seriously. So my only
(47:44):
thing is, like, you could totally see why people may
have speculated about that things, just as you said, Ben,
But um, there is a there's a version of this
where it makes total sense that someone would take out
one of these interns who was going to speak. Why
would they do that to marry and not to Monica?
Right right, So, to answer your question, Mahoney's death occurs
(48:08):
in and the Lewinsky scandal goes public in January, and
the murder of Mahoney occurs in July of so between
January and July. So, given all this information, is clear
that not all these claims on this list can be
taken in face value. But just because one theory might
(48:31):
not hold up doesn't mean there's nothing else out there. Actually,
now that we're now that we're sinking our teeth into
this folks, we are going to make this a two parter.
Typically we like to plan these in advance, but there's
a lot more to dive into the Clinton Foundation, white Water, Benghazi,
(48:53):
of course, the emails, and as we promise, what I
argue is the bigger Dane you're here, the larger implications
this sort of stuff, everything we're talking about has for
the present and the future. So we're gonna pause. We're
gonna call this part one. We're going to return in
(49:14):
a few days with part two of our deep dive
into the Clintons and corruption. Thank you so much for
tuning in. We as always can't wait to hear your opinions.
Let us know what you think. We try to be
easy to find online. Let's try. You can let us
know what you think in a number of ways on Facebook,
on Twitter, uh and you can also, you know, leave
(49:36):
a comment on our YouTube channel if you wish, our
handle at all three of those places, Conspiracy Stuff on Instagram,
if you wish, you can reach us at Conspiracy Stuff Show.
There's more that's right. I give us a call. Our
number is one eight three three st d w y
t K. When you call in, please give yourself a
cool nickname. Let us know if we can use your
(49:56):
name and voice on the air in one of our
listener mail at episodes. Uh, and you've got three minutes.
If you've got more to say than could fit in
that three minutes, why not instead give us a good
old fashioned email. We are conspiracy at iHeart radio dot com.
(50:29):
Stuff they don't want you to know is a production
of I heart Radio. For more podcasts from my heart Radio,
visit the i heart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever
you listen to your favorite shows.
Stuff They Don't Want You To Know News
Hosts And Creators
Matt Frederick
Ben Bowlin
Noel Brown
Show Links
RSSStoreAboutLive ShowsPopular Podcasts
The Breakfast Club
The World's Most Dangerous Morning Show, The Breakfast Club, With DJ Envy And Charlamagne Tha God!
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
Decisions, Decisions
Welcome to "Decisions, Decisions," the podcast where boundaries are pushed, and conversations get candid! Join your favorite hosts, Mandii B and WeezyWTF, as they dive deep into the world of non-traditional relationships and explore the often-taboo topics surrounding dating, sex, and love. Every Monday, Mandii and Weezy invite you to unlearn the outdated narratives dictated by traditional patriarchal norms. With a blend of humor, vulnerability, and authenticity, they share their personal journeys navigating their 30s, tackling the complexities of modern relationships, and engaging in thought-provoking discussions that challenge societal expectations. From groundbreaking interviews with diverse guests to relatable stories that resonate with your experiences, "Decisions, Decisions" is your go-to source for open dialogue about what it truly means to love and connect in today's world. Get ready to reshape your understanding of relationships and embrace the freedom of authentic connections—tune in and join the conversation!