Trump Surrogate Ignores Bush, Blames Middle East ‘Disaster’ Entirely On Clintons (VIDEO)

It could never be said that Trump’s media surrogates have a firm grasp of reality. We’ve seen that regularly from his campaign spokespersons like Jeffrey Lord, who is a fixture on CNN. But on June 23, Fox’s O’Reilly Factor hosted a guy who may be the most delusional Trump mouthpiece yet. He apparently forgot that George W. Bush was ever president.

O’Reilly’s guest host Eric Bolling spoke to Clinton supporter and former Obama campaign official Mark Hannah, along with Republican strategist Boris Epshteyn. The conversation was 100 percent Hillary, and Epshteyn very quickly proved himself to be completely divorced from the facts.

Bolling starts by asking Hannah who is winning the war of words that is going on between the two presumptive nominees. Hannah replies that it is Clinton, because she “has all the fact checkers on her side.” Indeed she does. Politifact, one of the fact checkers mentioned by Hannah, has rated 77 percent of the Trump statements they have reviewed as false to some degree. By contrast, Clinton, who Trump likes to call “lying Hillary,” has received one of the site’s false ratings for only 27 percent of her comments.

Hannah says that he thinks Clinton is getting better at “substantive attacks.” Bolling doesn’t seem to like that, and observes, “Substantive? You’re taking a shot at Donald Trump’s business record, meanwhile the guy is worth billions of dollars. Like him, hate him, you can’t deny he has money.”

Epshteyn ignores Bolling’s remark about Trump’s success and goes right back to Hillary. He says,

What we need to talk about is Hillary Clinton’s record of failure, starting over 30 years ago. Rose law firm, Whitewater, let’s talk about Vince Foster, talk about what happened with scandals in the White House.

Yes, once again a Trump surrogate has actually brought up the long ago settled case of the suicide of Vince Foster.

Hannah counters that Epshteyn had just recited “conspiracy theories and Republican talking points.” Then he launches into an attack on Trump’s not-too-stellar business record, and the impact his failures have had on Americans.

“Trump ice cost America some 100,000 jobs?” Epshteyn interrupts. His suggestion is that the trade deficit with China and the job losses that have accompanied it were the fault of Clinton and Obama policies. Of course the facts say something a little different.

The balance of trade with China was pretty stable throughout the years Bill Clinton was president, and even into the first term of George W. Bush. It began to take off in 2004, and has trended upwards ever since. During the years Hillary was secretary of state the trade deficit actually averaged lower than during Bush’s second term. Of course the recession accounts for part of that, but to suggest that Hillary was responsible for the deficit and the accompanying job losses is just counter to the facts.

And about those job losses? It is estimated that the U.S. has lost about 3.1 million jobs to China since the year 2001. Of those, 2.1 million were lost during the Bush years. But Epshteyn seems to have forgotten that Bush was ever president.

Epshteyn challenges Hannah to name one success Hillary Clinton experienced as secretary of state. Hannah replies that American foreign policy has been stabilized thanks to Obama and Clinton. Epshteyn scoffs, and asks about the Middle East. At that point Bolling has to get in his shots, and says he thinks that the Middle East is “far worse than it was prior to Hillary Clinton’s State Department stay.”

Note how neither Bolling or Epshteyn mention Bush or his administration at all? It’s like we went directly from Bill Clinton to Barack Obama, and somehow ISIS and the countries that teeter on the brink of anarchy in the Middle East got that way thanks to Democratic policies. Neither of them can acknowledge that Clinton spent a good deal of her time at the State Department repairing the damage that Bush’s minions caused around the world. They also can’t admit that ISIS would not exist, at least not in its current form, if Bush hadn’t broken Iraq. Because to recognize those simple truths means that their entire anti-Hillary argument falls apart.

Here’s the video, via Fox News:

Featured image via Fox News screen capture

Terms of Service

Leave a Reply