On Oct 26, 5:59*pm, Hawke wrote:



Well, all I can tell you is that I was a real estate agent for a number
of years. I've seen all kinds of property damage during that time. The
way I interpreted the accusation against the Clinton's to be was one
where they "trashed" the place. That is the term I heard when I first
heard the story. But from what I have been able to find out since then
is that story was bullcrap.

There was no reason to do any interpreting. You need to read what
people write.

The White House is a multimillion dollar property. Fifteen thousand in
damage is very little to that size property that isn't really a house
but is a commercial building as well. When you have one administration
leave the other comes in and does wholesale changes, so if some damage
is done when in the process it's not a big deal. In fact from my
perspective the entire thing is not a big deal.

Big deal or small deal. The fact is the original post said about
$15,000 damage. You said there was no damage. You did not say that
$15,000 was no big deal. Again you said no damage in reply to a
statement that there was $15,000 damage. I take that as saying there
was no damage. You could have said insignificant amount of damage,
but no you had to claim " no damage ". That is a response to a
statement of $15,000 damage. If the truth was there was only $500
damage, you might get by with claiming it was not significant damage.
But the truth is there was more damage than the original poster
claimed, and you say the original statement was false.


You seem to be wanting it to be so you can prove something negative
about the Clintons. So either they did something really, really, bad
when they left or they didn't. I don't think they did anything even
worth mentioning. But you're making a mountain out of a molehill. The
question is why? You have a an agenda of trying to make the Clinton's
out to be villains or you can't accept that I'm right? Whatever it is
you're really grasping at straws and look desperate. If I were you I
would give up while you can.

Hawke

No I am not trying to prove something negative about the Clintons. I
am proving that you make incorrect statements. I may be making a
mountain out of a mole hill, but the reason is that you will not or
can not reply to clearly worded statements with a rational response.
Why do you insist on denying that you were wrong. It is quite obvious
that you will deny anything negative about any Democrat. You should
admit you were wrong and not keep trying to find an out when it is
obvious to anyone that you are wrong.


Dan