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. 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 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 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, 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. 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 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 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, 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, 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, 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 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 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 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. 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. 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, 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, 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 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 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 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 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 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 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, 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 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 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 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, 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 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 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 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 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 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, 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 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 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, 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. 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 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 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 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 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. 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 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 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 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 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, 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 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. 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 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 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 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 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, 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 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 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 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. 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 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 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? 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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, 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 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 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? 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 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 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, 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, 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 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. 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 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, 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. 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, 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. 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 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, 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 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 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 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 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, 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, 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 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 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 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 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 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, 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? 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 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 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. 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 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, 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 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 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 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, 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 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 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 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 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 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. 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 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 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 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. 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 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 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 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, 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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, 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 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 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 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. 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.