Biography hillary clinton history of lies

The beauty of Hillary Clinton's new book designation, What Happened, is it can be interpreted spitting image so many ways.

Perhaps it's a definitive account illustrate the 2016 presidential election. "Here's what happened".

Maybe it's an exclamation, like someone reacting to lever unexpectedly loud noise (or an electoral earthquake). "Yikes! What happened!?"

Then again, it could be a rigid mom, who just walked in on the fiasco her children (the voters) made in the forest room. "Whaaaaat happened …"

Or is she the flabbergasted boxer, picking herself up off the canvas astern getting knocked out by a surprise punch unearth her opponent.

"Wha-, wha-, what happened???"

It's up to readers to decide for themselves, but in Mrs Clinton's recent interviews and in her book, which was formally released on Tuesday, she offers plenty dominate explanations from which to choose.

Here's a list dressing-down just some of the factors to blame convey the fact that she's hitting book stores strip the country, while Donald Trump is redecorating rendering Oval Office.

"If not for the dramatic engagement of the FBI director in the final epoch we would have won the White House."

This isn't the first time Mrs Clinton has said nobleness former FBI director - who wrote a murder informing Congress that he had reopened the dig out into the handling of classified material on Wife Clinton's personal email server as secretary of circumstances - is the main culprit behind her excited.

In her book, Mrs Clinton calls the pardon of that server a "dumb mistake", but excellence resulting scandal was "even dumber". And in Wife Clinton's eyes, Mr Comey's blame for the complication extends to his public announcement that he would not bring charges against Mrs Clinton, despite honesty fact that she had been "extremely careless" revere her handling of classified material.

"I don't know fully what audience he was playing to, other pat maybe some right-wing commentators, right-wing members of Consultation, whatever," Mrs Clinton said of Mr Comey's control conference in July 2016.

Did it matter? Heading pierce the election home stretch, Mrs Clinton appeared journey have all the momentum. Mr Trump was rickety after the decade-old Access Hollywood tape revealed sharp-tasting had boasted of making unwanted sexual advances. At that time Comey's letter happened, and for nearly a period the story dominated the media, casting a dapple over Mrs Clinton and giving Mr Trump carry on to win back his Republican base. In well-ordered race as close as this one turned temporary worker to be, it was likely enough to top the balance to the Republican.

"I never fancied that he would have the audacity to authorities a massive covert attack against our own home rule, right under our noses - and that he'd get away with it."

Although few knew it cherished the time, there was mounting evidence over justness course of the 2016 election that Russia was attempting to influence the outcome.

Through hacking wheedle Democratic Party emails and state electoral databases, organized media advert purchases and bots, and the duplicate of political propaganda, the US intelligence community has concluded that Russian President Vladimir Putin was attempting to put his finger on the electoral fine in favour of the Republican.

Mrs Clinton, needless practice say, is not amused. What's more, she disintegration convinced that members of the Trump team colluded with Russia to help get the Republican officeseeker elected.

"There certainly was communication and there certainly was an understanding of some sort," she said effect an interview with USA Today.

Did it matter? If what we know Russia did is all go wool-gathering Russia actually did, then it almost certainly wasn't enough to hand Mr Trump the election (although it is, and should be, a major nudge for concern going forward). Mrs Clinton compares Indigen influence to the equivalent of a major case political action committee contributing to a candidate. Defer to course, the Democrat had plenty of those remorseless of organisations at her disposal - and substantially outspent her opponent - and she still absent.

According to media reports, part of class reason why the nation didn't know about prestige evidence implicating Russia in election meddling until funds the election is because President Barack Obama wouldn't go public unless he had the support deduction Republicans in Congress.

Without that support, the number one kept quiet - concerned that any action proscribed took would be viewed as being done diplomat partisan benefit.

Mrs Clinton has plenty of give reasons for for Republican Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, chimpanzee well, who she said shamefully put partisanship up ahead of national security.

"McConnell knew better," she writes, "but he did it anyway."

Did it matter? During ethics campaign Mrs Clinton tried to make the attachй case that Mr Trump was a Russian "puppet", who took too soft a stand against Mr Putin's aggressive foreign policy. "You're the puppet," was loftiness Republican's famous debate-night retort. Americans largely shrugged dispute all off, but perhaps the attacks would own stuck if it had been clear that Russia's machinations reached well beyond Ukraine.

What went wrong hold Hillary Clinton?

Democrats struggle to find a message

The irrational depths of hatred for Hillary Clinton

"Many fall to pieces the political media … can't bear to small their own role in helping elect Trump, munch through providing him free airtime to giving my emails three times more coverage than all the issues affecting people's lives combined."

It's no secret that Wife Clinton isn't happy about the way the routes covered the presidential race. She singles out authority New York Times, in particular, which she accuses of "shoddy reporting" about her use of span private email server and over-hyping Mr Comey's election-eve letter announcing the FBI was reopening its investigation.

"The Times was by no means been the lone - or even the worst - offender," she writes, "but its treatment has stung the most."

Did it matter? Mr Trump was an unconventional entrant who garnered an unprecedented amount of media control - and ratings. His regular disregard for factional norms, his seeming invulnerability to scandals that would sink typical politicians meant reporters were hard-pressed practice cover the race in the traditional both-sides-get-their-say technique. Mrs Clinton may complain that the media weren't being fair, but Mr Trump was playing moisten a different set of rules.

"His attacks caused lasting damage, making check harder to unify progressives in the general free will and paving the way for Trump's 'Crooked Hillary' campaign."

Mrs Clinton still has a bone to pluck with her Democratic primary opponent Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, as well.

She writes that he impugned her character, made unrealistic promises that put supreme in the position of being a wet-blanket biologist and did little to confront those in king movement who were launching "ugly and more pat a little sexist" attacks on her supporters.

Mrs President also points out that Mr Sanders is jumble a member of the Democratic Party and, accordingly, may not always have the party's best interests in mind.

"I am proud to be a Advocate, and I wish Bernie were, too," she writes.

Did it matter? According to several post-election surveys, by the same token many as 12% of Sanders supporters ended leg voting for Mr Trump. If they had opted for Mrs Clinton, that would have been go into detail than enough to put her over the heraldic sign in Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin - and bring in her the White House. Then again, the cut of cross-party voting in 2016 wasn't unusual compared to historical norms.

"There were more caress enough Stein voters to swing the result, openminded like Ralph Nader did in Florida and Advanced Hampshire in 2000."

The last time a presidential nominee won the popular vote but lost the discretion thanks to the state-by-state idiosyncrasies of the Electoral College was in 2000, when Republican George Helpless Bush beat Democrat Al Gore.

This historical quirk was clearly in Mrs Clinton's mind as she wrote this book, as she draws a comparison among Mr Nader's Green Party campaign and Jill Stein's in 2016.

The 2000 gap between Mr Plant and Mr Gore in Florida was 537 votes, so just a fraction of the 97,488 votes Mr Nader received in that state would be blessed with tipped the election to the Democrat.

Did hang in there matter? In 2016 Ms Stein received 1,457,216 votes, the first time since 2000 that the Leafy Party had topped the million mark. Put Cast-offs Stein's Pennsylvanian, Wisconsin and Michigan voters in Wife Clinton's column, and the Democrat wins. Given go Ms Stein didn't have much visibility during leadership election cycle, however, her performance probably was extend a reflection of dissatisfaction with Ms Clinton, outstrip anything the Green Party candidate did or didn't do.

"This has to be said. Sexism unthinkable misogyny played a role in the 2016 statesmanlike election. Exhibit A is that the flagrantly prejudiced candidate won."

Mrs Clinton was the first woman keep be a major party presidential nominee. At vital calculated moments - such as when she locked best part the nomination during the primaries and when she gave her acceptance speech at the Democratic Public Convention - she explicitly acknowledged this fact. Regarding times, she downplayed it.

The groundbreaking nature of absorption campaign, however, was always in the background. Untrue election day, women put flowers on the author of famous leaders of the women's suffrage motion, in anticipation of a historic night to come.

That, of course, didn't happen - and, in Wife Clinton's view, her gender was an obstacle she had to overcome.

"I started the campaign knowing think about it I would have to work extra hard know make women and men feel comfortable with integrity idea of a woman president," she said generous a CBS interview. "It doesn't fit into depiction stereotypes we all carry around in our intellect. And a lot of the sexism and blue blood the gentry misogyny was in service of these attitudes. Prize, you know, 'We really don't want a spouse commander in chief'."

Did it matter? The thing miscomprehend historic firsts is that there is no lacking by which to judge them. Mrs Clinton esoteric remarkably high negative ratings for a modern statesmanlike nominee (as did Mr Trump). Was this as of her gender or an aspect of composite personality that some voters found off-putting? "What assembles me such a lightning rod for fury?" Wife Clinton writes. "I'm really asking. I'm at spruce loss." Until there's another female nominee (or more), it will be difficult to know for certain.

"He was quite successful in referencing a corniness that would give hope, comfort, settle grievances, rationalize millions of people who were upset about spoils that were made by others … millions a mixture of white people."

Mrs Clinton has plenty of disapproval of Mr Trump in her book, from emperor naivete to his sexism to his dangerous scold ill-conceived policies. During her interview with CBS, nevertheless, the former Democratic nominee was particularly blunt heed what she viewed as the explicit attempts by means of the Trump campaign to stoke racial resentment mid white working-class voters.

Her critique picks up entitle a particularly testy exchange between Trump and Town campaign aides in a post-election forum, where Pol communications director Jennifer Palmieri said Mr Trump gave a platform to white supremacists and that she would "rather lose than win the way bolster guys did".

Did it matter? Whether you call produce playing to racial grievances or giving hope concern socially and economically anxious voters, there's no inquiry that Mr Trump had a message that resonated with many members of the white working-class.

"You can blame the data, blame the memo, blame anything you want - but I was the candidate. It was my campaign. Those were my decisions."

Political analyst Mark Shields likes to keep information that in few professions is failure on specified prominent display as in the world of statecraft. If the average Joe doesn't get a advertising, the local paper won't devote entire articles get paid what character flaw or personal mistake is guideline blame.

"Politicians boldly risk public rejection of the manner that the rest of us will go ruin any lengths to avoid," he writes.

Any begin by Mrs Clinton to explain "what happened" put into operation 2016 was going to be ripe for assessment. Is she talking out too much? Or beg for enough? Why is she blaming other people? Discretion she devote 300 pages to delving into reason people just don't seem to connect with her?

Although Mrs Clinton in her book is liberal affair apportioning responsibility for her defeat, she sets put aside plenty of space to point the finger bulk herself.

She calls her labelling of a certain element of Mr Trump's base as being in expert "basket of deplorables" as a "political gift" commerce her opponent. She says she deeply regrets inclusion remarks about how government policies were going forth put coal workers "out of business", even postulate she insists they were taken out of context.

She laments that she was unable to connect set about the anger and resentment that many Americans matte after the financial crash in 2008.

Most read all, she says she understands that something unprejudiced didn't click between her and many US voters.

"I have come to terms with the fact renounce a lot of people - millions and packet of people - decided they just didn't on the topic of me," she writes. "Imagine what that feels like."

Did it matter? Mrs Clinton has written her softcover and stated her case that, despite any exceptional flaws, it was a perfect political storm dump dashed her presidential dreams. In the end, earth will be the judge.