In 2016, concerns about Hillary Clinton’s health were unmistakable, even to those within the highest echelons of government. Reports indicated that both the public and the FBI were acutely aware of her deteriorating condition as the presidential election loomed. The Gateway Pundit emphasizes that their early warnings about Clinton’s health were not taken seriously by legacy media, which labeled their assertions as dishonest. Yet, the truth seems to have been overlooked amid the noise of the campaign.
One striking observation emerged from comparing the campaign styles of Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton. During the election season, Trump engaged in a grueling schedule of multiple rallies per day, while Clinton appeared to take frequent breaks. Specifically, in August 2016, Clinton took seven days off within the first half of the month—dates that stand out as the Trump campaign continued to push forward without pause. Such a stark contrast suggests not just a difference in strategy but raises questions about Clinton’s endurance during critical moments of her candidacy.
Adding to this narrative was the alarming moment at the 9/11 memorial service. Clinton appeared to be in distress, requiring assistance as she was helped into her vehicle. This event became a pivotal moment, coinciding with significant drops in her polling numbers. The incident raised eyebrows and prompted discussions about her overall fitness to lead. The imagery of being “chucked like a slab of beef” into a van remains a graphic representation of her struggles and has not been forgotten in the public discourse.
Less than a month after this incident, Clinton was featured in an issue of Women’s Health Magazine, a curious timing given her recent health crises. Critics were quick to point out the disconnect between a magazine cover focused on empowerment and the reality of her health struggles. A puff piece about fighting for women’s rights felt out of place, casting a shadow over the sincerity of such portrayals.
Recent revelations have shed light on the specifics of Clinton’s health during that campaign. Reports surfaced indicating that she was prescribed heavy tranquilizers and suffered from significant heart-related issues. This information further supports earlier claims about her well-being and raises questions about transparency during the campaign. The implications of these revelations have resonated deeply, casting doubt on the integrity of the Clinton campaign.
The role of FBI Director Jim Comey is particularly significant in this analysis. Uncovered notes from Comey indicate that he was aware of Clinton’s health issues and contemplated their political repercussions. As Comey navigated these sensitive matters, concerns about a perceived bias within the FBI surfaced. His actions—deciding to protect one candidate while scrutinizing another—fueled discussions about fairness in the electoral process.
These issues surrounding Clinton’s health and the varying political reactions underscore an unsettling reality. Transparency and accountability are essential for any candidate, particularly one aspiring for the nation’s highest office. The revelations surrounding Clinton’s condition not only speak to her individual candidacy but reflect the larger dynamics of political trust and media narratives that shape public perception.
The consequences of these events persist, serving as a reminder of the importance of honesty in politics and the profound impact that health and personal well-being can have on leadership aspirations. As the campaign of 2016 is revisited, it becomes clear that the lines between personal struggles and public responsibilities can create a complex tapestry that defines a candidate’s journey in the eyes of the electorate.
"*" indicates required fields
