To: Gaffer
I agree....have not been happy with the SS for a couple of decades now...
they are to protect the prez or the candidates....
they are not there to change history by protecting the image of the candidate...
31 posted on
09/13/2016 10:21:03 AM PDT by
cherry
To: cherry
Dignified perseverance in their pursuit of near-sacred duties is NOT full license to protect nor condone corruption and deceit. Had these people actually took their chartered duties, this would not be happening.
32 posted on
09/13/2016 10:25:27 AM PDT by
Gaffer
To: cherry
they are not there to change history by protecting the image of the candidate... My understanding is they had to agree to cover for sleaze to stop the protectees from dodging their security teams. That almost makes sense, in terms of not talking about Bill Clinton's dalliances. It's entirely different when it comes to hiding events that occur in public at a time when there is no real security threat to be covered.
37 posted on
09/13/2016 1:20:17 PM PDT by
Pollster1
(Somebody who agrees with me 80% of the time is a friend and ally, not a 20% traitor. - Ronald Reagan)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson