Ex-Secret Service Agent Dan Borgino: "This Is How The Clinton Mob Works"

originally posted by: MysticPearl

originally posted by: ADSE255
Hillary has always treated men in her service with no respect. That is, unless it fulfilled her perverse will. I'm prepared to say more like him will come forward about the Clinton's dirty dealings.

She's a Monster dressed in White.

I must stick up for Hillary here.

Drunken outrage and tantrums towards her secret service is far more respectful than a bullet to the back of the head, reserved for her friends.

In my opinion. A bullet is a lot kinder. Anything to end her nagging would be a relief to the soul.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

That is just more a consequence of power corrupting and less a reflection on Hillary's character though. I'm not naive enough to believe that people that power touches aren't completely unaffected or anything. I just don't believe all the slander the right says about Hillary Clinton. If anything, the right's inability to drop this bone is coming off more as a "boy who cried wolf" scenario. Why should I believe any of their new claims when they've lied so much about Hillary already?

Did you read the article? Sure there is hysteria about Clinton on the right. However, I've had the same reaction you are having, but with Trump based on even MORE hysteria from the left. Still don't like him though.

Also, your dismissal of the issues I mentioned bring up important larger issues, for which we should have a thread. 1) Can one get to that level of power without becoming compromised or engaging in unethical conduct? I am starting to question if it's possible or if so rarely. 2) Do highly unethical, corrupt, or even highly evil and amoral actions, such as working for the rich or invading and destroying many countries, become moral because of the scale and level they are at. I argue no. 3) Is someone's character intact if one engages in such activities to achieve power?

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14
Did you read the article? Sure there is hysteria about Clinton on the right. However, I've had the same reaction you are having, but with Trump based on even MORE hysteria from the left. Still don't like him though.

Article? What article? The source is a video from Fox News. Also, I have reserved judgement on Trump's activities for until AFTER the investigations have finished. I've stated this many times since January. So you don't need to bring him up to me as a weak deflection.

Also, your dismissal of the issues I mentioned bring up important larger issues, for which we should have a thread. 1) Can one get to that level of power without becoming compromised or engaging in unethical conduct? I am starting to question if it's possible or if so rarely. 2) Do highly unethical, corrupt, or even highly evil and amoral actions, such as working for the rich or invading and destroying many countries, become moral because of the scale and level they are at. I argue no. 3) Is someone's character intact if one engages in such activities to achieve power?

Politicians are humans just like you and I. It is beyond stupid to assume that 100% of them are corrupt just like it is beyond stupid to assume that all of them are on the level. This distinction is lost on ATS quite often where people will adopt a negative opinion of someone and instantly assume the worst about them JUST because they are a politician.

It's always this way with the Clintons. "I've got dirt on them but...I can't tell you what it is." That's how you can tell it's BS. A real man if he had stuff would put it out there. He's a fraud.

It's the same with the UFO stuff and many conspiracies. I have information but I can't divulge it yet. True sign of a fraud.

You didn't read my article I posted to you: m.huffpost.com...
It's by a very respected LEFT leader, not right, and lays out the issues with Clinton.

Which means you didn't read my post or points carefully.

Also, no need to get testy.

My point here is that people on both sides of the aisle need to stop being apologists for these people. If you are correct in your assertion that one doesn't need to become compromised to reach Clinton's level, then it only further impugnes her character for her actions to get there and support of bad policies.

a reply to: amazing

Could it be due to the of the web the Clinton's hold? Abusers always use fear as their weapon to shut their victims up. Fear and threats.

I doubt many are willing to go up against Goliath. Chain reaction. Think.. Suicided Bankers. The chain these people are holding is long.

Billionaires are Organized. The average Joe? Not so much.

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14
You didn't read my article I posted to you: m.huffpost.com...
It's by a very respected LEFT leader, not right, and lays out the issues with Clinton.

Oh sorry. I missed it. I thought you were talking about the OP when you said that.

Which means you didn't read my post or points carefully.

Also, no need to get testy.

My point here is that people on both sides of the aisle need to stop being apologists for these people. If you are correct in your assertion that one doesn't need to become compromised to reach Clinton's level, then it only further impugnes her character for her actions to get there and support of bad policies.

Well keep in mind that Clinton is pretty much damaged goods at this point. She may never see the inside of a jail cell, but it would take a miracle for her to hold public office again. So you can take solace in that. As for her being held accountable to starting the Iraq War, ehhhh... There are several people in the Republican party that should be held accountable first before we get down to Hillary's level.

originally posted by: ADSE255
a reply to: amazing

Could it be due to the of the web the Clinton's hold? Abusers always use fear as their weapon to shut their victims up. Fear and threats.

I doubt many are willing to go up against Goliath. Chain reaction. Think.. Suicided Bankers. The chain these people are holding is long.

Billionaires are Organized. The average Joe? Not so much.

It could be, but he's not your average Joe. He has loads of law enforcement and media connections that 98% of us will never have. He's got enough power to "leak" information and get it out there. He's not doing it because he has nothing. He's just playing politics. What he's playing is this. The easiest way to spread doubt about someone is to drop subtle hints of wrongdoing and half truths and questions.

No worries. As I said in one of my responses, my critiques of her are my same critiques of a number of politicians. Just like the Iraq War. Obama and Hillary though were primary players in the Libyan and Syrian proxy war/regime change ops.

a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

Keep in mind that back in the early 2000's it was a different time. Politicians weren't so adverse to the word "compromise" as they are now. So if a Republican had a crazy idea, Democrats would be willing to listen and even go along with it if that meant they could get some concessions their way. This also worked vice-verse. In fact, it is how our country has always worked and is really what I want us to return to.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

Keep in mind that back in the early 2000's it was a different time. Politicians weren't so adverse to the word "compromise" as they are now. So if a Republican had a crazy idea, Democrats would be willing to listen and even go along with it if that meant they could get some concessions their way. This also worked vice-verse. In fact, it is how our country has always worked and is really what I want us to return to.

Of course. Becoming compromised does not have the same meaning as compromising with people in a reasonable manner. Becoming compromised means becoming corrupted or owned let's say due to threats or blackmail.

a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

Well accusing someone of being compromised is rather tough without evidence. We can have our suspicions based on their actions, but what if they TRULY believe that is the best way to govern the country? It's hard to say. It's one of the things I don't like to focus on because it introduces a lot of bias to a conversation. Instead we need to address the issue of money in politics (Citizens United for example). Singling out politicians though is a no-win situation.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: jaynkeel

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: jaynkeel
a reply to: Annee

Yep keep bending over backwards and licking the heels of the politicians that enslave you. Brilliant. Both sides are corrupt as hell, until people get this through their heads, fail. Really can we be this stupid as a whole? I guess so if people are still defending one side vs the other....

So, I should believe Bangino?

Nope , but to be honest your bias on this site over the past , forever makes it apparent your beliefs. All I am saying is to open your eyes to the party you worship and realize they are the same side of the coin as the opposite. Then you might understand. Or be ignorant I could care less anymore to be honest, but will gladly call you out when I see it. I realized long ago both are equally guilty of the same thing....

You do know I was a Republican for 40+ years - - - Right? I went to unaffiliated because of Cheney. However, I voted for "W" his first term.

What I can say is - - - I voted for the presidential candidate that was the most qualified. And I still stand by that.

She's qualified, but that needs to be moderated by the fact that qualifications in the possession of a corrupt war mongering wall st shill can be dangerous. It's like saying that we want a highly skilled and 'qualified' person for mayor, even though he is a former mafia boss. Those skills can be used for bad.

Let's take her political or legal expertise. These are amoral skills in the sense that one can use them for good or bad.

originally posted by: amazing

originally posted by: ADSE255
a reply to: amazing

Could it be due to the of the web the Clinton's hold? Abusers always use fear as their weapon to shut their victims up. Fear and threats.

I doubt many are willing to go up against Goliath. Chain reaction. Think.. Suicided Bankers. The chain these people are holding is long.

Billionaires are Organized. The average Joe? Not so much.

It could be, but he's not your average Joe. He has loads of law enforcement and media connections that 98% of us will never have. He's got enough power to "leak" information and get it out there. He's not doing it because he has nothing. He's just playing politics. What he's playing is this. The easiest way to spread doubt about someone is to drop subtle hints of wrongdoing and half truths and questions.

He may have power, but good men often have to work harder at justice than does evil at corruption.

Not everyone in law enforcement is innocent. Unfortunately. Pay off's have been made. When money talks, people walk.

a reply to: shawmanfromny

Didn't one of her secret service personnel say she was terrible to them treated them like maids during her campain.

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: jaynkeel

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: jaynkeel
a reply to: Annee

Yep keep bending over backwards and licking the heels of the politicians that enslave you. Brilliant. Both sides are corrupt as hell, until people get this through their heads, fail. Really can we be this stupid as a whole? I guess so if people are still defending one side vs the other....

So, I should believe Bangino?

Nope , but to be honest your bias on this site over the past , forever makes it apparent your beliefs. All I am saying is to open your eyes to the party you worship and realize they are the same side of the coin as the opposite. Then you might understand. Or be ignorant I could care less anymore to be honest, but will gladly call you out when I see it. I realized long ago both are equally guilty of the same thing....

You do know I was a Republican for 40+ years - - - Right? I went to unaffiliated because of Cheney. However, I voted for "W" his first term.

What I can say is - - - I voted for the presidential candidate that was the most qualified. And I still stand by that.

She's qualified, but that needs to be moderated by the fact that qualifications in the possession of a corrupt war mongering wall st shill can be dangerous. It's like saying that we want a highly skilled and 'qualified' person for mayor, even though he is a former mafia boss. Those skills can be used for bad.

Let's take her political or legal expertise. These are amoral skills in the sense that one can use them for good or bad.

At least you didn't argue she isn't qualified.

Difficult to seriously determine the rest.

Hillary was "Swift Boated" by the Right, just like Kerry was. Those were, at least 99%, outright lies.

To this date, as far as I can tell, she has not been found guilty of anything.

I leave the next few decades open.

I'mean inclined to believe him before the Clinton train.

originally posted by: VforVendettea
I'mean inclined to believe him before the Clinton train.

Why?

Let's "Swift Boat" him and see how he fares.

Anything you think you know about either one is second hand -- several times over.

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

That is just more a consequence of power corrupting and less a reflection on Hillary's character though. I'm not naive enough to believe that people that power touches aren't completely unaffected or anything. I just don't believe all the slander the right says about Hillary Clinton. If anything, the right's inability to drop this bone is coming off more as a "boy who cried wolf" scenario. Why should I believe any of their new claims when they've lied so much about Hillary already?

Did you read the article? Sure there is hysteria about Clinton on the right. However, I've had the same reaction you are having, but with Trump based on even MORE hysteria from the left. Still don't like him though.

Also, your dismissal of the issues I mentioned bring up important larger issues, for which we should have a thread. 1) Can one get to that level of power without becoming compromised or engaging in unethical conduct? I am starting to question if it's possible or if so rarely. 2) Do highly unethical, corrupt, or even highly evil and amoral actions, such as working for the rich or invading and destroying many countries, become moral because of the scale and level they are at. I argue no. 3) Is someone's character intact if one engages in such activities to achieve power?

I agree with your three questions validity of need to get an answer 100%. Very well thought through imho. Your posts on this thread are stikingly good points. Krazy is against any thing that might shatter the democrats and left paradigm that anybody not like them must the be racists or whatever the flavor of the day.....Attacking the messenger for those types is the best bet since the facts are, at this point, overwhelmingly against that pack of thieves.

There are plenty of leftists like myself who criticize her for war mongering and republican light economic policies. 99% of critiques are not lies, although I'm sure some is. Care to answer this article by a well known progressive policy maker?
m.huffpost.com...