Investigating Rhetoric’s of the ‘Clinton Body Count’
The ‘Clinton Body Count’ is a conspiracy theory that has been around for many years, long before the Clinton Administration began. It is a conspiracy theory that claims that the Clinton’s assassinate those who are close to them, mostly staff and colleagues. There are many reasons for this theory, the main being that there have been many deaths to Clinton staff members over the years, many of which are claimed to have been ‘suspicious’. The Thought Co considers how this theory began, explaining that “according to an article by Philip Weiss on February 23, 1997, issue of The New York Times Magazine, the earliest version of the “Clinton Body Count” was authored by Indianapolis attorney Linda Thompson, founder of the right-wing group American Justice Federation. The list originally contained the names of 26 alleged victims, though it has grown, and shrunk, and grown again since then, with some variants boasting over 100 names”[1]. In my essay, I will investigate the rhetoric’s used by those who believe this theory and are expressing their belief to others, and how successful they are at trying to convince others that this theory is correct.
There are many reasons as to why there are believers of the ‘Clinton Body Count’. The main being that several dozens of people who are close to the Clintons have died, some due to ‘suspicious’ circumstances. Many of these people are those who were members of staff for Clinton campaigns or worked closely to their rivals. Consequently, this caught the attention of many people in society who noticed a pattern of deaths and their closeness to the Clinton’s, and thus this conspiracy theory began. In order to gain the attention of as many people as possible, believers use captivating rhetoric’s which I will now discuss below.
The main tactic that makes these articles so captivating and inspiring is their clever use of literary techniques and language. An example of this is the expression of their opinion, but in subtle ways without using personal pronouns like I, me and my, so the reader does not notice an opinion is being made. This tactic is highly effective as many people do not respond positively when opinions are being forced on them, however, this method means that they do not realise that an opinion is being put on them and may read it as being factual. An example of this is “see the thing is you can’t just kill people when you are embroiled in a lawsuit or under investigation and not expect the stench of the dead bodies piling up to not catch up with you eventually”[2]. Another ingenious method is to inject sentences in the article that make the reader think about the theory, questioning their understanding without explicitly prompting so. An example of this is “The film the Clinton chronicles documents all this pretty well up until before the Clinton’s left office. The Clinton chronicles itself also had two deaths of people who worked on the documentary”[3]. Here, the writer has dropped in about the fact that there were deaths in such an innocent circumstance, making the reader believe that maybe this theory is true as it seems like the most likely explanation in this scenario. One other astute tactic is the use of factual information, which enhances the believability of the theory. Many readers will believe the validity of an argument when factual information can be used to support it. For example, for one of the articles that I read on Medium, it discussed, in detail, cases such as the Whitewater scandal and ‘Vince Foster’, vividly explaining the details of these events with factual evidence.
Many different rhetorical features were used by its believers across the many articles and documents that I read, which were used to capture readers attention in many differing ways. Its main feature was the “What I see” rhetoric, which appeals to observations, rather than opinions. This was demonstrated above in the tactic of factual evidence and the subtle give of opinions. Moreover, the tactic of “Appealing to history” has also been used to show how this theory has been consistent over time, from Bill’s Presidential Campaign in 1993 to Hillary’s in 2016.
Throughout many of the articles that I read through to investigate this conspiracy theory, it is evident that there are major themes prevalent across them all as similar techniques and points of information are discussed. The most predominant theme is criminal nature, with many different speech techniques used. The most prevailing terms used are nouns such as “evidence”, “investigation” and “victims”, adjectives such as “unsolved” and “mysterious” and verbs such as “murder”. This theme is significant as it highlights the criminality of the supposed actions taken by the Clintons. Another theme that is present is scepticism, which is a likely theme to be present as this is discussing conspiracy theories in a technique to let the reader decide their own opinion. However, this is evident through the use of verbs such as “believe”, “claimed” and “seems”, as well as the noun “validity”. One surprising final theme is optimism, which has been used to demonstrate a positive aspect on this conspiracy theory. Examples of this are the verbs “cause” and “organised”, the noun “story” and the adjective “credible”.
As a consequence of these tactics, many different narratives are created. By using non-persuasive and non-invasive methods, it allows readers to formulate their own opinion on the theory as to whether or not they believe it to be true. This narrative allows believers to express events of history without facing major criticism or backlash. They achieve this by using factual information about the Clinton administration and Hillary’s presidential campaign, as well as the other scandals and cases that they have faced. It also makes believers who read others’ articles strengthen their belief in the theory when they see such real information being presented to them. However, these stories mean that its adherents ignore the entire story and the bigger picture. It uses narrow stories that show the multiple deaths surrounding the Clintons. Moreover, no article by a believer mentions how only a couple of these deaths are suspicious. Furthermore, the Clinton’s interact with thousands of people each year, so inevitably they are more likely to experience more deaths to people close to them than the average person.
As a result of the factual evidence surrounding the ‘Clinton Body Count’, I found it very hard to find many articles and journals that were written directly by believers of this conspiracy theory. Instead, when I searched the term ‘Clinton Body Count’ into Google, the top search results were mostly news articles or factual websites. Naturally, I decided to investigate what these websites had to say about this theory as there was a vast amount that were instantly accessible. Of all the numerous ones that I read, not one believed that this conspiracy theory was true. In fact, they were all adamant that this theory was ridiculous and that it was absurd that it was even a point of discussion, especially for the length of time that this theory has been around. For every factual piece of information there is that believers use to demonstrate that their theory is correct, debunkers have two pieces of information to show that they must be wrong. Every article I read from a non-believer was adamant that the ‘Clinton Body Count’ is a complete fallacy. Moreover, each article took a different approach to make their point heard. For example, the Snopes website used humour, as demonstrated in “There have been a couple of unsolved murders (Jerry Parks, Kevin Ives, and Don Henry), but there have also been deaths by natural causes that have been tossed into the mix willy-nilly simply to boost the body count. (As we said earlier, how can anyone claim a death by pneumonia was a suicide?) All the best lies make sure to mix a bit of truth in with them, and the few genuinely unsolved murders work to cloak the many less credible claims in an aura of plausibility. Don’t be overly bemused by them — study each entry on its own merits”[4]. This tactic makes their point more memorable, which is why this is a common technique. Furthermore, PolitiFact highlights how “Facebook flagged [the ‘Clinton Body Count’] as part of the company’s efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed”[5]. This demonstrates how the majority of people do not believe in this conspiracy theory as it is widely regarded as not being true.
As can be seen above, believers of the ‘Clinton Body Count’ use many different tactics and rhetoric’s to make their voices and points heard by as many people as possible. The main technique is to use factual information which, in my opinion, is the best way to gain respect and interest from those who do not believe or have not yet decided whether or not they believe in this theory. Consequently, I found that this method of convincing by believers of this specific theory the most effective as it allows readers to formulate their own opinion without feeling pressured. However, I do not believe that the ‘Clinton Body Count’ is a true theory. I believe that most of the deaths surrounding the Clinton’s is purely coincidental and that only a couple of deaths out of several dozen is not suspicious in my eyes. However, I enjoyed studying the rhetoric’s used by its believers and at certain points, especially when discussing the deaths surrounding those who worked on the Clinton documentary, it made me question my instant disbelief in the theory. Nonetheless, if the ‘Clinton Body Count’ was true, then I do not believe that figures such as Monica Lewinsky and Linda Tripp would still be alive today.
Bibliography
Geng, Lucia. (2018, July 18). No Evidence Woman Who Died in Home Explosion was to Testify Against Clintons. Retrieved from https://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2018/jul/18/blog-posting/no-evidence-woman-who-died-home-explosion-was-test/
Medium. (2017, May 24). The Clinton Body Bag Saga and How Seth Rich & #DNCFraudSuit May Finally Be the End of Their Criminal Dynasty. Retrieved from https://medium.com/@An0nKn0wledge/the-clinton-body-bag-saga-and-how-seth-rich-dncfraudsuit-may-finally-be-the-end-of-their-da6c37d0bb4b
Parry, Hannah. (2016, August 23). Google buries ‘Clinton Body Count’: Search Engine Accused of Hiding Negative Stories During Hillary’s Campaign. Retrieved from https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3754655/Google-buries-Clinton-body-count-Search-engine-accused-hiding-negative-stories-Hillary-s-campaign.html
Snopes. (1998, January 24). Clinton Body Bags. Retrieved from https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/clinton-body-bags/
Thought Co. (2018, July 19). The Clinton Body Count. Retrieved from https://www.thoughtco.com/the-clinton-body-count-4056792
WND. (2016. August 21). ‘Clinton Death List’: 33 Spine-Tingling Cases. Retrieved from https://www.wnd.com/2016/08/clinton-death-list-33-most-intriguing-cases/
[1] Thought Co.
[2] Medium
[3] Medium
[4] Snopes
[5] Politifact
