r/politics • u/rollingstone Rolling Stone • Jun 02 '24

Trump Denies Ever Saying ‘Lock Her Up.’ He Did… Several Times Soft Paywall

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/trump-denies-saying-lock-her-up-clinton-1235031145/
34.0k Upvotes

92% Upvoted

2.2k comments sorted by

View all comments

10.5k

u/The_Navy_Sox Jun 02 '24

His entire campaign in 2016 was sending Hilary to jail.

2.0k

u/OopsAnonymouse Jun 02 '24

He literally said it to her face during the debate on national tv

956

u/A_Harmless_Fly Minnesota Jun 02 '24

I mean...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_lie 80 year old techniques still work well if a person has no great understanding of history I suppose.

Turns out the information age is followed by the disinformation age >.<

460

u/BlueFlob Jun 02 '24 edited Jun 02 '24

Agreed.

  • We had a brief Information age that reached its peak in the early google days.
  • Followed by misinformation with Fox, buzzfeed and social media fighting for attention
  • We've fully entered disinformation by 2014-2016 with American politics, Russia and corporations capitalising where there are massive benefits and no consequences to information manipulation.

223

u/DerfK Jun 02 '24 edited Jun 02 '24

and no consequences to information manipulation

Honestly, this is where we need to turn things around. If Peter Thiel can pay for Hulk Hogan to sue Gawker and a website designer can be sued by an imaginary customer for refusing an imaginary order and get to the supreme court, then it really is time to find some lawyers willing to find someone who can claim these disinformation campaigns are causing them financial harm and start having some consequences like we saw with Fox News and Dominion Voting Systems.

EDIT: just checked on the case and it was a website designer that had created the fake lawsuit, not a baker.

113

u/Old_Baldi_Locks Jun 02 '24

The website owner thing is going to have repercussions for decades. It literally established precedent for someone with no valid legal standing to bring a case on someone else’s behalf.

There shouldn’t have been any court that even allowed that case, much less had it make its way to the highest court in the land.

47

u/SurlyRed Jun 02 '24

The People vs The Supreme Court

Exhibit One

15

u/LoveMyBP Jun 02 '24

This is why we need term limits on SCOTUS

9

u/Roxnaron_Morthalor 29d ago

Why do I always see people having such a huge hope for term limits to do anything against corruption, much rather have a proper system to remove suspected corrupt officials from office than limit the amount of good a person with integrity can do for decades.

5

u/LoveMyBP 29d ago

Oh I don’t have hope, it’s a pipe dream. Lol.

But yes what you’re saying is true but we’re past that. Nixon was the last person I can remember that resigned because the party turned on him.

The party doesn’t hold itself accountable anymore

2

u/Roxnaron_Morthalor 29d ago

Honestly, that still sounds like the problem is partisan politics and a lack of reward for integrity and an incentive for corruption, simply decreasing the timespan for individuals to fall for these problems would more likely cause politics to become an even more revolving door of corrupt individuals.

Better to solve this three-fold, 1. better education for the electorate 2. stronger limits to running for office 3. a better mechanism to impeach/prosecute individuals who arbitrarily use their office's power

→ More replies (0)

5

u/notfromchicago Illinois 29d ago

The problem isn't the age, it's the ideology.

4

u/LoveMyBP 29d ago

Well the ideaology of an 85 year old is different from a person who is living in the now.

And plus, when you’re tenured you’re not incentivized to have the ideology of the people, just your own.

2

u/-Z___ Jun 02 '24

A fascinating Thought-Experiment induced with only six words...

But who will oversee the Trial? God?

1

u/repoman-alwaysintenz 26d ago

Which one? I think the People vs. SCOTUS is a revolution, not a trial

1

u/WolfOne 29d ago

please no. everyone but him.

5

u/ussrowe 29d ago

It literally established precedent for someone with no valid legal standing to bring a case on someone else’s behalf.

I assume the rightwing intent was to make a case for overruling legalizing gay marriage. Which in part of the rulings used to legalize it had limited who has standing to even bring a lawsuit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollingsworth_v._Perry

Which was used by celebrity chef Paula Deen in defense against a white employee who sued and claimed Deen was making a hostile working environment for black employees: https://workforce.com/news/why-paula-deen-loves-gay-marriage

Clarence Thomas already suggested the Obergfell case was worth revisiting when they overruled Roe v Wade: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obergefell_v._Hodges#Dobbs_v._Jackson_Women's_Health_Organization_(2022)

3

u/kemikiao Jun 03 '24

someone with no valid legal standing to bring a case on someone else’s behalf

Unless that person is bring a case against a Republican...in that case, no one has actual standing.

53

u/radiosimian Jun 02 '24

Dude, as a GenXer I can confirm that the West's response to cyber warfare has been pitiful at best.

The West focused on offense, but has found itself incapable of defense. Early wins: Stuxnet. Every loss: US politics

13

u/HauntedCemetery Minnesota Jun 02 '24

Except the Supreme Court decides which cases it takes, they can pass on any. And they would absolutely pass on that.

14

u/JQuilty Illinois Jun 02 '24

Not even remotely comparable. Peter Theil is a shit stain, but Hulk Hogan had a 100% legitimate claim against Gawker for posting what was essentially revenge porn.

Gawker also dug their own graves during the trial by blowing off depositions, saying deranged shit like they'd publish a 10 year old child actor's sex tape, and insulting the judge and ignoring an order to take the video down.

35

u/jah_bro_ney Jun 02 '24

In the 90's they sold the internet as the "information superhighway", but what we got instead was the disinformation dirt road.

9

u/Brapb3 29d ago

“disinformation autobahn” would be a more apt description

46

u/HauntedCemetery Minnesota Jun 02 '24

Google went from "don't be evil" to "actually, evil pays really well" in like 2 years.

5

u/BlueFlob Jun 02 '24 edited 29d ago

If the shareholders will it... How can we object?

/S

4

u/missingimage01 29d ago

It's officially called the "post-truth era" if you wanna get really sad on YouTube.

3

u/Bamith20 Jun 03 '24

Google helped start the information age and now they're having a hand in killing it, the enshittification process at work.

6

u/Alexis_Bailey Jun 02 '24

Big tech brought this on us themselves.  It used to be all about trust.  But no, it's hard to sell ads against that, so now everything is algorithms churning out stupidity regardless of value, or lack thereof.

1

u/Szygani 29d ago
  • We had a brief Information age that reached its peak in the early google days.
  • Followed by misinformation with Fox, buzzfeed and social media fighting for attention
  • We've fully entered disinformation by 2014-2016 with American politics, Russia and corporations capitalising where there are massive benefits and no consequences to information manipulation.

You know, I thought that first part as well. But the second and third makes me think we might've not had that information age as much as we thought we did.

16

u/3IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIID Jun 02 '24

Trump waffled on appointing a special prosecutor to launch another investigation into Hillary Clinton as soon as he won the election and before he was even sworn in. His fans apparently have a short attention span or just don't pay attention to the fact that he broke his biggest campaign promise before he was even sworn in. https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-wont-try-to-prosecute-clinton-after-all-aide-says-150537237.html

1

u/InternationalLeek360 29d ago

MAGA avatars have no memory.

7

u/HauntedCemetery Minnesota Jun 02 '24

It's more like the information age was followed by the choose-your-own-information age. It's exceptionally easy to pick your own information bubble and only hear made up shit like trump actually winning the defamation case against his rape victim and she owing him hundreds of millions, a real narrative that is commonly believed by maga cultists.

6

u/Nasars Jun 02 '24

So Hitler came up with the term, described how it worked in his book and then used said technique to decieve the very same people that he previewsly sold the book to?

3

u/whateverwhoknowswhat Jun 02 '24

the information age is followed by the disinformation age >.<

One for the history books

1

u/Power_Taint 29d ago

Homeboy, 1925 was 99 years ago but you could just round it up to 100. Not important, but 100 does sound better and more is more accurate than 80

1

u/Apexnanoman 29d ago

How can you even deny something that has multiple 4K video recordings along with high def audio? 

1

u/best_of_badgers 29d ago

They still work regardless. You aren’t immune to persuasion even if you know how it works. Your brain doesn’t have the time or energy to be in high-alert filter mode all the time.

1

u/dirkvonshizzle 29d ago

Has nothing to do with understanding of history. It has to do with cultish behavior and dynamics. It doesn’t matter what he says, or if he denies doing something everybody saw him do, even if it’s on tape and verified to be real. The power of moronic rage of cognitively limited individuals Trumps any kind of sense of reality.

1

u/spaceguitar Georgia 28d ago

Man, Hideo Kojima was really onto something with that MGS2 ending...

29

u/KindfOfABigDeal I voted Jun 02 '24

Whats (not) hilarious is I immediately remembered that exact exchange in the debate when I read the headline. It's like him saying he never said they should build a wall, lol.

5

u/Evil-in-the-Air Iowa 29d ago

When he wasn't laughed off the stage for "We're gonna build a wall and make Mexico pay for it" I knew we were in trouble. Seems downright quaint now.

3

u/hebejebez 29d ago

Similar to how I couldn’t believe everyone in America didn’t die of embarrassment and spontaneously combust from shame when he handed Angela Merkel a bill for nato shit. Mortified and I’m not even American

7

u/plipyplop Delaware Jun 02 '24

"Well, he never said that he never said that he didn't never not say that he didn't not said... and even if heeee did..."

-Trump supporters

3

u/Pristinejake 29d ago

He’s a narcissist. Gaslighting is one of his favorite tools.

3

u/EndOfMyWits 29d ago

And got a cheer.

2

u/Wooptie_woop Jun 02 '24

It doesn't count because it was just a 4d chess move and not a statement😂

2

u/VoiceOfRealson 29d ago

Senility is a horrible thing.

It can happen to even the best of people.

But that is not the case with Trump.

2

u/ohshititshelen 29d ago

Did he know he was on national tv???? Is the question lmfao

2

u/slowrun_downhill 29d ago

What are you going to do, believe your own eyes, or believe Trump?

2

u/thomport 29d ago

Now Hilary wants “Felon Don” locked up.

Oh, Trump’s credentials.

1

u/Federal_Revenue_2158 Jun 02 '24

Yeah but Trump is old and senile fuck. Maybe he doesn't remember.

-17

u/OneEyedStabber Jun 02 '24

No he didn't. He didn't say he would lock her up. 

Go back and watch the debate and get back to me. 

He said if he were in charge of the legal system she would be in jail, implying he would fix a corrupt justice system. 

9

u/MicrotracS3500 Jun 02 '24

So if he were in charge, then she'd be in jail...how is that meaningfully different than saying he would lock her up? Because he's not personally turning the key?

-7

u/OneEyedStabber Jun 02 '24

Because she wasn't in jail at the time because Obama was president and he is calling out a two tiered justice system.

I dont necessarily agree with him, she was investigated, but you guys seem to be missing the point.

Imagine if a town had a crooked judge, and then someone came in and said "If I were judge, all these crooks would be in jail". 

10

u/OopsAnonymouse Jun 02 '24

I think you're missing the point. He said, on live tv, that she would be in jail if he were president. Now he is denying he said Lock Her Up. That is a distinction without a difference.

It's like if I beat you with a baseball bat and take your lunch money, and you tell the cops I robbed you. Then a year later, I deny it because I mugged you. I didn't ROB you.

Does anyone care about the technical difference?

9

u/rechnen Jun 02 '24

He also said "for what she's done they should lock her up" at at least one rally.

https://x.com/KevinlyFather/status/1797296077890335051?t=b1CGn0Uz58HVdYLeZsW6sA&s=19

9

u/MicrotracS3500 Jun 02 '24

He's saying she deserves to be in jail, and if he were in charge, she would be charged, convicted, and sent to prison. That's completely synonymous to saying he wants to "lock her up". He obviously has no problems with his political opponents being prosecuted. Now suddenly he wants a two-tiered system to work in his favor.

-3

u/OneEyedStabber Jun 02 '24

There's a difference between "prosecuting" political opponents just because they are your opponent and saying your opponent should've been locked up but they haven't been because of a corrupt system and you plan to fix that system so she is rightfully prosecuted. 

9

u/rechnen Jun 02 '24

I mean Trump tried to order the DOJ to prosecute her so I really don't know what point you're trying to make.

https://www.vox.com/2018/11/20/18105462/trump-clinton-comey-order-justice

6

u/MicrotracS3500 Jun 02 '24

Literally nobody is saying it's ok to prosecute innocent people. Republicans and Trump are now saying certain people should be off limits, even if there's probable cause that they've committed a crime.

0

u/OneEyedStabber Jun 02 '24

Republicans will tell you that both Trump and Clinton and Biden committed several crimes but only Trump has been prosecuted because democrats hate him so much. 

I dont think they're arguing that anyone should be off limits, just that the application of the law should be equal. 

8

u/MicrotracS3500 Jun 02 '24

Republicans will tell you that both Trump and Clinton and Biden committed several crimes

So what's been stopping them from prosecuting Clinton and Biden?

1

u/OneEyedStabber Jun 02 '24

Well according to my Trumpist father it's to avoid putting a stain on the office of the president. 

→ More replies (0)

6

u/Herbivory Jun 02 '24

 she wasn't in jail at the time because Obama was president

Actual delusion

2

u/Defiant-Many6099 New Jersey 29d ago

I take it that you don't like that Trump is being kept accountable. That correct?

7

u/MicrotracS3500 Jun 02 '24

Here's a video of him directly saying it:

"Lock up the Bidens, lock up Hillary. Lock them up"

https://x.com/Acyn/status/1317248938001403904

-2

u/OneEyedStabber Jun 02 '24

Nice find. I couldn't find this when searching earlier. 

5

u/Kalean Jun 02 '24

You should edit your previous comment to reflect it, then.

-1

u/OneEyedStabber Jun 03 '24

No, I think this chain of comments reflects a natural conversation.