Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
5 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

Agreed. It makes no sense to me so I don't put much stock into it, but figured I'd share it in case it did make sense to those with more experience dealing with clearances and what's required. 

 

My guess is HRC does not want to subject herself to a Background Investigation that could expose her dealings at the State Department

  • Like (+1) 1
  • Replies 3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted
34 minutes ago, /dev/null said:

 

How would it make her more difficult to track?  It's not like they RFID tag people with a clearance.

 

Bill and HRC are two of the most recognizable faces on the planet.  Include their entourage and the requirements of their lavish lifestyles, and they will be easy to track

 

1 hour ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

Sorry, I meant if she tried to flee the country. Not run for office. I should have been more clear. :beer:

 

 

You'd think her Secret Service detail would be easier to track.

  • Like (+1) 1
Posted
20 minutes ago, Koko78 said:

 

 

 

You'd think her Secret Service detail would be easier to track.

In the unlikely event the Clintons ever made a run for it, I think they would be smart enough to not bring Federal law enforcement officers along with them

Posted
Just now, /dev/null said:

In the unlikely event the Clintons ever made a run for it, I think they would be smart enough to not bring Federal law enforcement officers along with them

 

Are you sure? They're pretty arrogant.

Posted
4 hours ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

I have had a crazy past 48 hours and haven't really gotten a chance to do much digging myself into this topic - but I heard one thing I wanted to float out there to the group because it made little sense to me. A friend told me they believe dropping her clearance makes Clinton harder to track if she were to make a run for it - which sounds shaky to me, but who knows...

 

It makes no sense whatsoever.  Given that she's got a full-time Secret Service escort for life, she's already tracked 24/7.  When she ditches them, then she might be making a run for it.

 

But she won't go on the lamb...because that would mean she did something wrong.  Persecution by the "great right-wing conspiracy" is a deep-seated part of her identity; she'd sooner stay, face that, and reinforce her perception of herself than run and deny it.

  • Like (+1) 1
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, DC Tom said:

 

It makes no sense whatsoever.  Given that she's got a full-time Secret Service escort for life, she's already tracked 24/7.  When she ditches them, then she might be making a run for it.

 

But she won't go on the lamb...because that would mean she did something wrong.  Persecution by the "great right-wing conspiracy" is a deep-seated part of her identity; she'd sooner stay, face that, and reinforce her perception of herself than run and deny it.

 

But what if they have footage of her eating children? ?

 

 

 

Edited by OJ Tom
Posted
4 minutes ago, OJ Tom said:

 

But what if they have footage of her eating children? ?

 

Well, before it could be released, the owner of said footage got really depressed. Suicidal even. They did not seek help, and shot themselves in the back of the head twice, and once through the heart, for good measure.

Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Koko78 said:

 

Well, before it could be released, the owner of said footage got really depressed. Suicidal even. They did not seek help, and shot themselves in the back of the head twice, and once through the heart, for good measure.

 

Yep, that's what I've heard. She better put a full tank of gas in it, before she gets on her lamb, anyway.

 

 

 

Edited by OJ Tom
Posted
2 hours ago, OJ Tom said:

 

But what if they have footage of her eating children? ?

 

 

 

 

Not her fault.  It takes a village, after all...

Posted
16 hours ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

 

I agree with her, for once.  Imbalance of power is not de facto abuse of power, and I don't recall a single thing in the Starr report that so much as implied that Lewinsky was denied agency in any way.

 

To say Lewinsky was a victim of Bill's in any way is SJW bull ****.  Lewinsky was more victimized by Linda Tripp than Clinton. 

  • Like (+1) 1
Posted
41 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

I agree with her, for once.  Imbalance of power is not de facto abuse of power, and I don't recall a single thing in the Starr report that so much as implied that Lewinsky was denied agency in any way.

 

To say Lewinsky was a victim of Bill's in any way is SJW bull ****.  Lewinsky was more victimized by Linda Tripp than Clinton

 

If Monica had not followed Linda's advice to keep the dress, she'd be in jail, dead, or in an insane asylum today.

Posted
1 hour ago, DC Tom said:

 

I agree with her, for once.  Imbalance of power is not de facto abuse of power, and I don't recall a single thing in the Starr report that so much as implied that Lewinsky was denied agency in any way.

 

To say Lewinsky was a victim of Bill's in any way is SJW bull ****.  Lewinsky was more victimized by Linda Tripp than Clinton. 

 

Your HR department would like a word with you.

Posted
Just now, Joe Miner said:

 

Your HR department would like a word with you.

 

Because HR departments aren't full of SJW bull **** themselves.

×
×
  • Create New...