Corrupt because Byrne, at least, said things that weren't true: 

 Secret Service veterans denounce anti-Clinton tell-all book 
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/hillary-bill-clinton-secret-service-224578
 
 
 
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/hillary-bill-clinton-secret-service-224578
 
 
 Secret Service veterans denounce anti-Clinton tell-al... 
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/hillary-bill-clinton-secret-service-224578
 Former agents blasted writer Gary Byrne for having "underlying motives."
 
 
 
 View on www.politico.com 
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/hillary-bill-clinton-secret-service-224578
 
 Preview by Yahoo 
 
 
  

 The Arkansas state troopers? You have to be kidding. Those stories have been 
debunked. The troopers were paid by right-wingers to make up and pass on 
gossipy tales about the Clintons.
 

 And Byrne doesn't need job security, since he is a *former* agent. But 
according to the high-ranking former agents (who don't need job security 
either) who have denounced him, he wasn't in a position to see what he reported 
in the book; his rank wasn't high enough. From the Politico article:
 

 The closest contact that Byrne could have had, according to Gilhooly and 
others, is seeing the president or the first lady pass in the hallway — far 
from the intimate access he would have needed to catch Bill Clinton in the act 
or see Hillary Clinton fly into the cursing rages he now writes have convinced 
him that she doesn’t have the “integrity and temperament” to be president.

 

 Oh, and the Clintons have never had anybody "bumped off."
 

 No, declaring victory doesn't make me victorious. What makes me victorious is 
exposing the parrot vomit right-wingers enjoy spewing for what it is.
 

 

 

 
 
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <mdixon.6569@...> wrote :

 Right, one corrupt former agent whom the rest of the service repudiates.
 
 No, there are at least two books out there by former SS agents. Corrupt? Why, 
because they told all? Don't forget the State Troopers that were bodyguards in 
Arkansas.
 From Ronald Kesslers book First Family Details: "When in public,Hillary smiles 
and acts graciously." Kessler explains, "As soon as the cameras are gone, her 
angry personality, nastiness and imperiousness become evident". He added: 
"Hillary Clinton can make Richard Nixon look like Mahatma Gandhi." He said she 
is rude to SS and others, cussed Secret Service drivers, never said *thank you* 
.He goes on and on.
 BTW, it wasn't the *rest* of the Secret Service that repudiated  Gary Byrne. 
It was a few high ranking members that denied his book, much of which he got 
was  from other agents.I would think telling all on the Clintons would not be 
good for job security. Might be difficult to bump -off a Srecret Service agent 
though. Repudiating those that do *tell all* would be job security.
 Sorry Judy, declaring victory doesn't make you victorious.


 From: "authfriend@... [FairfieldLife]" <FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com>
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
 Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2016 4:11 PM
 Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] It's Looking Good
 
 
   
 

 You are really not doing so well, Mike. Your attempted comebacks are getting 
weaker and weaker.
 

 You know how psittacines regurgitate their food when they get a crop 
infection? The regurgitated material is a disgusting slimy mass.
 

 Same with parroted slime from the right wing. It's truly repulsive and a 
symptom of serious illness.
 

 

 

 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <mdixon.6569@...> wrote :

 
 Oh yes, the Secret Service is especially fond of looking out for her!
 
 


 From: "authfriend@... [FairfieldLife]" <FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com>
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
 Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2016 11:12 AM
 Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] It's Looking Good

 
   That's only in public. Just about without exception, everyone who has worked 
with her (including Republicans) says she's warm and caring and funny and 
charming and exceptionally likeable.
 

 

 

 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <mdixon.6569@...> wrote :

 She has to look *likeable*, which she is not. That's like asking nurse Ratchet 
to look and act likeable.
 
 


 From: "awoelflebater@... [FairfieldLife]" <FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com>
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
 Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2016 10:28 AM
 Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] It's Looking Good

 
   

 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <authfriend@...> wrote :

 
 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <salsunshineiniowa@...> wrote :
 (snip)
 There’s really only one way Hillary could lose this debate IMO, and that’s if 
she pulls a Gore and tried to play down her own massive intelligence and 
experience in an attempt  to make Trump look smarter than he is.   Why anyone 
would do that is of course the big question, which I’m sure still leaves 
psychologists scratching their heads about Gore and his first debate to this 
day.

Gore wasn't so much trying to make Bush look smarter. Gore had been brutally 
mocked for being too wonkish and was portrayed as stiff and boring, and he was 
attempting to counter that image. 

 

 Hillary actually has a similar problem. She needs to come across as human and 
charming as well as intelligent and experienced. Not fair, but that's the way 
it is.
 

 At this point I think all the debates are striving to do is capture the 
approval and votes of all of those independents and/or former Bernie supporters 
who are leaning towards Jill or Gary. The Hillary supporters are going to stay 
Hillary supporters and Trump supporters are going to keep enabling a sociopath 
no matter what happens at the debates. It would take some sort of miracle for 
Trump's base to abandon him. It will be very interesting to see what happens 
and how the polls are effected after the debate based on performance. That 
should give us a hint as to how important the debates are and how many 
undecideds there actually are/were out there pre-debate.







 















 














 


 











 
  

  • Re: [FairfieldLife] It's ... authfri...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]
    • Re: [FairfieldLife] ... awoelfleba...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]
      • Re: [FairfieldLi... Mike Dixon mdixon.6...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]
        • Re: [Fairfie... olliesed...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]
        • Re: [Fairfie... authfri...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]
          • Re: [Fai... Mike Dixon mdixon.6...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]
            • Re:... authfri...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]
            • Re:... Mike Dixon mdixon.6...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]
            • Re:... emily.ma...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]
            • Re:... authfri...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]
            • Re:... authfri...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]
            • Re:... awoelfleba...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]
            • Re:... Mike Dixon mdixon.6...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]
            • Re:... authfri...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]
            • Re:... Mike Dixon mdixon.6...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]
            • Re:... olliesed...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]
            • Re:... awoelfleba...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]
            • Re:... authfri...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]
        • Re: [Fairfie... awoelfleba...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]
          • Re: [Fai... Mike Dixon mdixon.6...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]
            • Re:... awoelfleba...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]

Reply via email to