Former NSA and CIA director: "whether [Clinton] enjoys ‘elite immunity,’ we don’t know"

“I think [Clinton] is vulnerable, but whether she enjoys what I call ‘elite immunity,’ we don’t know. For much lesser violations people have lost their jobs. But when you get to the higher ranks, it’s like another set of rules.”
Former NSA Director Michael Hayden: I Would Be Surprised If Foreign Intelligence Services Were Not Snooping Around With Hillary Clinton's Emails

I'm posting this as a public service for those of us who have trouble convincing others of things such as the fact that the US government is run by an oligarchy and is in fact a giant criminal conspiracy.

Former NSA and CIA director Michael Hayden is speaking above. He's not presenting his thoughts as theory or opinion. He's saying that the laws that apply to the common people do not necessarily apply to the elite. I know this isn't news to about 95% of the members here. I just think having someone of Michael Hayden's stature say it explicitly is important because we can point to it as evidence.

Hayden went on to say:

“If it were me, I would have been out the door and probably in jail. It was a lack of accountability, frankly, in a person who should have been much more responsible in her actions as the secretary of state of the United States of America.”

I would consider a former NSA and CIA director to be elite, how about you?

However, I believe he's making a distinction between his level of eliteness and Hillary Clinton's level of eliteness.

Could that be because of Hillary Clinton's royal pedigree?

Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton revealed to be distant cousins as family trees show they share same set of royal ancestors

a reply to: Profusion

Oh absolutely.

The more powerful or big the unit or person, the rules definitely change. Who knows what things will be like 500 years from now in this regard, however.

originally posted by: Profusion

Could that be because of Hillary Clinton's royal pedigree?

Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton revealed to be distant cousins as family trees show they share same set of royal ancestors

No. I am related to this royal line just as much as Trump or the Clintons. Prince Charles is my 21st cousin. He's probably yours, too, and when you go back that far we're all related anyway. At 4 generations per century (assuming 25 years is sufficient for a generation, though it's probably closer to 20) that's 40 generations per 1,000 years, and that takes you almost to the Battle of Hastings in 1066. I can trace the Montague family back that far.

So 2 to the 40th power. Do the math.

a reply to: OneGoal

A very good point, but a bad example. The US makes its payments on its debt. I only get calls and threats about my student loans when I don't make my payments. That said, I get what you're saying and agree, it's just not really an accurate example.

a reply to: OneGoal

National debt is much different from personal debt, a more apt contrastor for your student loan debtor would be Sharpton and his tax debt; that shows a marked difference in how the rules are applied.



To the OP, Hayden is not the only one saying what he is; I've read several news stories interviewing former high ranking people in intelligence.

Add to that anyone who has held a clearance of any level will tell you the same thing; there are many who are members here that confirm that.

If she skates, I can scarecly imagine the knock on effects...

What if Jesus has already come back, but like reality the truth of his power was exaggerated in stories. So he is here, and is working behind the scenes to clean up messes, and some of the elites who know are now coming clean with their confessions in hopes of being spared the wrath of the one true King???

Or its aliens forcing them to gradually answer and confess to their crimes. Who knows. I think its jesus and aliens, because its likely Jesus was an alien.

originally posted by: schuyler

originally posted by: Profusion

Could that be because of Hillary Clinton's royal pedigree?

Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton revealed to be distant cousins as family trees show they share same set of royal ancestors

No. I am related to this royal line just as much as Trump or the Clintons. Prince Charles is my 21st cousin. He's probably yours, too, and when you go back that far we're all related anyway. At 4 generations per century (assuming 25 years is sufficient for a generation, though it's probably closer to 20) that's 40 generations per 1,000 years, and that takes you almost to the Battle of Hastings in 1066. I can trace the Montague family back that far.

So 2 to the 40th power. Do the math.

I used the term "royal pedigree" for a reason.

pedigree

the history of the family members in a person's or animal's past especially when it is good or impressive
www.merriam-webster.com...

Family is so much more than just shared genetics...

The Godfather's World -- Your World

A true family is a group of people who invest in each other's skills and future. Within such a family, no person is expendable.

Throughout history, financial wealth has been organized around families. Many of the powerful institutions in our society, in fact, represent intergenerational pools of capital -- for example, the Bechtel Corporation, the Rockefeller Foundation, and the Glenmede Trust Company
The Godfather's World -- Your World

Using "The Godfather" films as an example of how the world works is a perfect way to understand why your relation to royalty is entirely different than someone like Hillary Clinton's relation to royalty. Let's say that you were a distant relative of someone such as the godfather that was portrayed in the films. If you go ask him for help without him ever having seen you before, do you think the fact that you're related to him is going to help you get help from him? It may help slightly.

Compare that with a distant relative who is widely considered to be a part of the family (by the family itself). That means that the distant relative has worked for the family or been close to the family in some significant way. Now, that relative will be much more likely to get help. There are many reasons for that and it should be obvious.

How does the above apply to my original post?

Michael Hayden made a distinction between his level of eliteness and Hillary Clinton's level of eliteness. When we consider the bigger picture, what I'm proposing is that Clinton gets a higher elite status because of her royal pedigree. Blood relations is only one part of that.

Family is so much more than just a blood relationship. It's probably the deepest thing that exists among humans.

If anyone (who's had at least an average family) can't understand the above just from their own experience, I don't know where they're coming from.

Beyond that, there's a much broader context to consider. I could make a case for why all US presidents have been related to British royalty by using factual evidence concerning world history, the history of America and Britain, the legal traditions in both countries, the belief systems of the elite in both countries, the unbelievable treachery that made it all possible, etc. I might do that sometime.

a reply to: Profusion

Different set of rules?? - Their rules protect them from our rules.

*How many blokes do you know that can shoot a Texas Attorney in the face and walk away without even a slap on the wrists?

*Why did a dodgy CIA director end up becoming President of the US and cheerleader war-pig for the New World Order?

*Why did his son, coincidentally, also become president of the US, continuing the war-pig agenda?

*How can a POTUS go on TV and lie to the planet, then later admitted his guilt (when he got busted with his stuff on the dress) and still barely receive a slap on the wrist?

*Why is his wife now running for POTUS when she is facing a criminal investigation and suffers from selective confusion?

Yes, there are a different set of rules - if Elite Billionaire Bloodlines and their bitches the politicians were held to the same account as the rest of us, they'd all be in jail, or dead.

I'm posting this as a public service for those of us who have trouble convincing others of things such as the fact that the US government is run by an oligarchy and is in fact a giant criminal conspiracy.

It's not an oligarchy.

If anything it's a kleptocracy.

government by those who seek chiefly status and personal gain at the expense of the governed; also : a particular government of this kind

www.merriam-webster.com...

originally posted by: Profusion

I used the term "royal pedigree" for a reason.

Yet technically there is no difference. Clinton and Trump share great, great....grandfathers that were "royal." So do you and I. There is nothing fundamentally different in tracing their ancestors back to any number of kings than tracing yours or mine the same way. The Clinton/Trump "pedigree" (as you call it) has NOT been "royal" all the way down the line. They both have taken the bumps and bruises of 1,000 years of ups and downs that befall any family name which, incidentally, lasts only 4 generations on average. Clinton/Trump are not any MORE royal than you or I. You haven;t made a special case at all.

BTW, we're all related to Charlemagne, too!

originally posted by: schuyler

originally posted by: Profusion

I used the term "royal pedigree" for a reason.

Yet technically there is no difference. Clinton and Trump share great, great....grandfathers that were "royal." So do you and I. There is nothing fundamentally different in tracing their ancestors back to any number of kings than tracing yours or mine the same way. The Clinton/Trump "pedigree" (as you call it) has NOT been "royal" all the way down the line. They both have taken the bumps and bruises of 1,000 years of ups and downs that befall any family name which, incidentally, lasts only 4 generations on average. Clinton/Trump are not any MORE royal than you or I. You haven;t made a special case at all.

BTW, we're all related to Charlemagne, too!

You don't know my race. How do you know if I'm "related to Charlemagne." What's your evidence for making that statement?

Also, you're ignoring the definition of the word "pedigree."

pedigree

the history of the family members in a person's or animal's past especially when it is good or impressive
www.merriam-webster.com...

What does the "history of the family members" include?

Someone who's an actual member of an elite family has had certain experiences from birth that separate them from other people who may have the same exact amount of blood relation to the elite family in question but who are not a part of the family.

They were taught things by their parents that you were not taught. They received an education that you did not receive. They were given privileges that you did not get. They've had jobs/tasks that you could not get (probably 99% of the time). They belong to groups that you could not belong to (probably 99% of the time). And, they're considered to be a member of a family simply based on who their parents were.

Blood relationships are only part of what a pedigree is. So, the following statement is a total lie.

originally posted by: schuyler
Yet technically there is no difference.

Pedigree includes a lot more than only blood relationships. It includes the history of everyone in the family.

You're trying to claim that Australian Bushman are related to Charlemagne. Why, because Australian Bushman and Charlemagne are the same species and therefore they're related?

Give me a break. I probably will not reply to you on this topic again because you're clearly not being honest IMHO.

originally posted by: neo96

I'm posting this as a public service for those of us who have trouble convincing others of things such as the fact that the US government is run by an oligarchy and is in fact a giant criminal conspiracy.

It's not an oligarchy.

If anything it's a kleptocracy.

government by those who seek chiefly status and personal gain at the expense of the governed; also : a particular government of this kind

www.merriam-webster.com...

I have something to support my view, what have you got?

US Is an Oligarchy Not a Democracy, says Scientific Study

a reply to: Profusion

I was much happier before my trip down the rabbit hole.

a reply to: Profusion

I have something to support my view, what have you got?

The LINKED dictionary DEFINITION.

Which beats an abovetopsecret thread.

US Is an Oligarchy Not a Democracy, says Scientific Study

I do LOVE that. Trying to bring 'science' in to political discussion. as some kind of justification for an OPINION.

Gross misuse of the word 'science'.

And there is NO such thing dealing with ANYTHING political in nature.

Oligarch is a political talking point. Only used by politicos, pundits, and politicians.

Again not a damn thing to do with 'science'.

NSA director? Or NSA Puppet-in-charge? He's a public face for the NSA, someone to take the brunt of congressional hearings and media interviews. The strings of the NSA are pulled by "people" without names.

originally posted by: neo96
US Is an Oligarchy Not a Democracy, says Scientific Study

I do LOVE that. Trying to bring 'science' in to political discussion. as some kind of justification for an OPINION.

Gross misuse of the word 'science'.

And there is NO such thing dealing with ANYTHING political in nature.

Oligarch is a political talking point. Only used by politicos, pundits, and politicians.

Again not a damn thing to do with 'science'.

I think the political SCIENTISTS that took all the time going over all those data points to make that study possible may disagree.

Via Google:
Political Science - n : the branch of knowledge that deals with systems of government; the analysis of political activity and behavior.

a reply to: atomish

Use ANY word you want.

POLITICS has absolutely nothing to do with science. Even if putting the word Political in front of it.

Politics is all about OPINIONS that have no basis what so ever in science.

a reply to: neo96

Neo!! Where have you been "hiding"? Haven't seen ya around...

So, this is your opinion, or is this based on any kind of fact?

Science:

Science is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe.

Link

And you don't think you can setup experiments to test and predict the outcomes of political systems?

Political science:

Political science is a social science discipline that deals with systems of government, and the analysis of political activity and political behavior. It deals extensively with the theory and practice of politics which is commonly thought of as determining of the distribution of power and resources.

Link

I get the impression you are anti-science anyway, as science generally doesn't support most of your beliefs and opinions.

a reply to: MystikMushroom

So, this is your opinion, or is this based on any kind of fact?

It's my opinion that was backed up by the dictionary.

Don't see how anyone can really argue with it.

government by those who seek chiefly status and personal gain at the expense of the governed; also : a particular government of this kind

Government by those who seek chiefly status, and person gain at the expense of the governed.

KLEPTOCRACY.

Neo!! Where have you been "hiding"? Haven't seen ya around...

I been trying to do more constructive things with my time.

a reply to: Sublimecraft I agree with everything you said; I usually do. But what about Nixon? Did he just piss off the wrong people?