On Oct 21, 4:08*pm, Hawke wrote:

You proved my point for me. The accusation was the Clinton people
"trashed" the White House. That sounds pretty severe to me. So what
really happened? Here is the list you gave: 62 keyboards, 26 cell
phones, two cameras, ten door knobs, and some medallions and signs were
removed.

I don't know about you, but I wouldn't even call taking 62 keyboards and
26 cell phones "damage" to the White House at all. But the fact is the
report doesn't show any real damage done or that there was recklessness
or disrespectful treatment of the White House itself at all.

You read the report and I did and to me what it said is that the claims
that the White House was trashed was a lie. From what I see in the
report whatever was done was minimal at best. Is that not right?

Hawke



You have a convient memory. Your statement was

"Two things: first the story you just told above is bogus and was
refuted
by numerous sources. There was no damage done to the white house by
the
Clintons. I'm surprised you didn't know that story was false."

Note the words NO DAMAGE. No means none. It does not mean only
$20,000 in damages. $20,000 is way above the threshold from
misdemeanor to felony.

Dan

On 10/21/2011 5:43 PM, wrote:
On Oct 21, 4:08 pm, wrote:

You proved my point for me. The accusation was the Clinton people
"trashed" the White House. That sounds pretty severe to me. So what
really happened? Here is the list you gave: 62 keyboards, 26 cell
phones, two cameras, ten door knobs, and some medallions and signs were
removed.

I don't know about you, but I wouldn't even call taking 62 keyboards and
26 cell phones "damage" to the White House at all. But the fact is the
report doesn't show any real damage done or that there was recklessness
or disrespectful treatment of the White House itself at all.

You read the report and I did and to me what it said is that the claims
that the White House was trashed was a lie. From what I see in the
report whatever was done was minimal at best. Is that not right?

Hawke



You have a convient memory. Your statement was

"Two things: first the story you just told above is bogus and was
refuted
by numerous sources. There was no damage done to the white house by
the
Clintons. I'm surprised you didn't know that story was false."

Note the words NO DAMAGE. No means none. It does not mean only
$20,000 in damages. $20,000 is way above the threshold from
misdemeanor to felony.

Dan




You're really grasping this time. Removing some keyboards from the White
House or some phones isn't doing "damage" to the property. From the
report you ought to be able to tell the White House was not "damaged".
Certainly there was no wanton and intentional damage by disgruntled
people leaving the place like they were accused of.

I told you that this story had been refuted years ago and it was. When
the charges were looked at it was clear that the White House was in good
shape when the Clinton's left and it was not "damaged". If you want to
call anything short of a model home damaged then there is no discussing
the issue with you. I used to be a real estate agent. Believe me, I know
what it looks like when a property is damaged.

Me, I'd question the 20K in damage too. According to whom? What's the
value of 62 keyboards and some used cell phones? 1000 bucks. The point
is there was a claim made that the Clinton's left the White House in
very bad condition and it sounded like it was done on purpose. These
claims were made by republican partisans. Then we see the report and
it's clear those claims were not true. But if you want go ahead and
believe that the Clinton's left a trail of destruction behind them when
they left, be my guest. I have no say so if you want to believe utter lies.

Hawke

On Oct 22, 8:35*pm, Hawke wrote:
On 10/21/2011 5:43 PM, wrote:



On Oct 21, 4:08 pm, *wrote:

You proved my point for me. The accusation was the Clinton people
"trashed" the White House. That sounds pretty severe to me. So what
really happened? Here is the list you gave: 62 keyboards, 26 cell
phones, two cameras, ten door knobs, and some medallions and signs were
removed.

I don't know about you, but I wouldn't even call taking 62 keyboards and
26 cell phones "damage" to the White House at all. But the fact is the
report doesn't show any real damage done or that there was recklessness
or disrespectful treatment of the White House itself at all.

You read the report and I did and to me what it said is that the claims
that the White House was trashed was a lie. From what I see in the
report whatever was done was minimal at best. Is that not right?

Hawke

You have a convient memory. *Your statement was

"Two things: first the story you just told above is bogus and was
refuted
by numerous sources. There was no damage done to the white house by
the
Clintons. I'm surprised you didn't know that story was false."

Note the words NO DAMAGE. *No means none. *It does not mean only
$20,000 in damages. *$20,000 is way above the threshold from
misdemeanor to felony.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *Dan

You're really grasping this time. Removing some keyboards from the White
House or some phones isn't doing "damage" to the property. From the
report you ought to be able to tell the White House was not "damaged".
Certainly there was no wanton and intentional damage by disgruntled
people leaving the place like they were accused of.

I told you that this story had been refuted years ago and it was. When
the charges were looked at it was clear that the White House was in good
shape when the Clinton's left and it was not "damaged". If you want to
call anything short of a model home damaged then there is no discussing
the issue with you. I used to be a real estate agent. Believe me, I know
what it looks like when a property is damaged.

Me, I'd question the 20K in damage too. According to whom? What's the
value of 62 keyboards and some used cell phones? 1000 bucks. The point
is there was a claim made that the Clinton's left the White House in
very bad condition and it sounded like it was done on purpose. These
claims were made by republican partisans. Then we see the report and
it's clear those claims were not true. But if you want go ahead and
believe that the Clinton's left a trail of destruction behind them when
they left, be my guest. I have no say so if you want to believe utter lies.

Hawke

I do not believe utter lies. I do believe what is in the GAO official
report. The 20k was according to he GAO.
The point is you said no damage and that is not true according to an
official government report.

It sounds as if it was done on purpose because it was. Removing key
caps is deliberate as in done on purpose.

If you want to believe there was no damage, be my guest. Just
remember not many people agree with you.

Dan

On 10/22/2011 7:41 PM, wrote:
On Oct 22, 8:35 pm, wrote:
On 10/21/2011 5:43 PM, wrote:



On Oct 21, 4:08 pm, wrote:

You proved my point for me. The accusation was the Clinton people
"trashed" the White House. That sounds pretty severe to me. So what
really happened? Here is the list you gave: 62 keyboards, 26 cell
phones, two cameras, ten door knobs, and some medallions and signs were
removed.

I don't know about you, but I wouldn't even call taking 62 keyboards and
26 cell phones "damage" to the White House at all. But the fact is the
report doesn't show any real damage done or that there was recklessness
or disrespectful treatment of the White House itself at all.

You read the report and I did and to me what it said is that the claims
that the White House was trashed was a lie. From what I see in the
report whatever was done was minimal at best. Is that not right?

Hawke

You have a convient memory. Your statement was

"Two things: first the story you just told above is bogus and was
refuted
by numerous sources. There was no damage done to the white house by
the
Clintons. I'm surprised you didn't know that story was false."

Note the words NO DAMAGE. No means none. It does not mean only
$20,000 in damages. $20,000 is way above the threshold from
misdemeanor to felony.

Dan

You're really grasping this time. Removing some keyboards from the White
House or some phones isn't doing "damage" to the property. From the
report you ought to be able to tell the White House was not "damaged".
Certainly there was no wanton and intentional damage by disgruntled
people leaving the place like they were accused of.

I told you that this story had been refuted years ago and it was. When
the charges were looked at it was clear that the White House was in good
shape when the Clinton's left and it was not "damaged". If you want to
call anything short of a model home damaged then there is no discussing
the issue with you. I used to be a real estate agent. Believe me, I know
what it looks like when a property is damaged.

Me, I'd question the 20K in damage too. According to whom? What's the
value of 62 keyboards and some used cell phones? 1000 bucks. The point
is there was a claim made that the Clinton's left the White House in
very bad condition and it sounded like it was done on purpose. These
claims were made by republican partisans. Then we see the report and
it's clear those claims were not true. But if you want go ahead and
believe that the Clinton's left a trail of destruction behind them when
they left, be my guest. I have no say so if you want to believe utter lies.

Hawke

I do not believe utter lies. I do believe what is in the GAO official
report. The 20k was according to he GAO.
The point is you said no damage and that is not true according to an
official government report.

It sounds as if it was done on purpose because it was. Removing key
caps is deliberate as in done on purpose.

If you want to believe there was no damage, be my guest. Just
remember not many people agree with you.

Dan


What I believe is that the White House was left in good condition when
the Clinton's left it. I also believe that the accusation that it was
"trashed" when they left was a lie. I'm sure it wasn't left like a model
home when the Clinton's left but I don't think that there was anything
other than incidental and minor damage that would occur any time a large
group of people moved out of a large building. I wouldn't be surprised
that the White House was in even worse condition when the first Bush
moved out. Those kinds of things happen all the time. I doubt that even
you think the White House was trashed when the Clinton's moved out.
Don't forget, that is what was alleged. And that was a lie.

Hawke

On Oct 23, 5:46*pm, Hawke wrote:
On 10/22/2011 7:41 PM, wrote:



On Oct 22, 8:35 pm, *wrote:
On 10/21/2011 5:43 PM, wrote:

On Oct 21, 4:08 pm, * *wrote:

You proved my point for me. The accusation was the Clinton people
"trashed" the White House. That sounds pretty severe to me. So what
really happened? Here is the list you gave: 62 keyboards, 26 cell
phones, two cameras, ten door knobs, and some medallions and signs were
removed.

I don't know about you, but I wouldn't even call taking 62 keyboards and
26 cell phones "damage" to the White House at all. But the fact is the
report doesn't show any real damage done or that there was recklessness
or disrespectful treatment of the White House itself at all.

You read the report and I did and to me what it said is that the claims
that the White House was trashed was a lie. From what I see in the
report whatever was done was minimal at best. Is that not right?

Hawke

You have a convient memory. *Your statement was

"Two things: first the story you just told above is bogus and was
refuted
by numerous sources. There was no damage done to the white house by
the
Clintons. I'm surprised you didn't know that story was false."

Note the words NO DAMAGE. *No means none. *It does not mean only
$20,000 in damages. *$20,000 is way above the threshold from
misdemeanor to felony.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Dan

You're really grasping this time. Removing some keyboards from the White
House or some phones isn't doing "damage" to the property. From the
report you ought to be able to tell the White House was not "damaged".
Certainly there was no wanton and intentional damage by disgruntled
people leaving the place like they were accused of.

I told you that this story had been refuted years ago and it was. When
the charges were looked at it was clear that the White House was in good
shape when the Clinton's left and it was not "damaged". If you want to
call anything short of a model home damaged then there is no discussing
the issue with you. I used to be a real estate agent. Believe me, I know
what it looks like when a property is damaged.

Me, I'd question the 20K in damage too. According to whom? What's the
value of 62 keyboards and some used cell phones? 1000 bucks. The point
is there was a claim made that the Clinton's left the White House in
very bad condition and it sounded like it was done on purpose. These
claims were made by republican partisans. Then we see the report and
it's clear those claims were not true. But if you want go ahead and
believe that the Clinton's left a trail of destruction behind them when
they left, be my guest. I have no say so if you want to believe utter lies.

Hawke

I do not believe utter lies. *I do believe what is in the GAO official
report. *The 20k was according to he GAO.
The point is you said no damage and that is not true according to an
official government report.

It sounds as if it was done on purpose because it was. *Removing key
caps is deliberate as in done on purpose.

If you want to believe there was no damage, be my guest. *Just
remember not many people agree with you.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Dan

What I believe is that the White House was left in good condition when
the Clinton's left it. I also believe that the accusation that it was
"trashed" when they left was a lie. I'm sure it wasn't left like a model
home when the Clinton's left but I don't think that there was anything
other than incidental and minor damage that would occur any time a large
group of people moved out of a large building. I wouldn't be surprised
that the White House was in even worse condition when the first Bush
moved out. Those kinds of things happen all the time. I doubt that even
you think the White House was trashed when the Clinton's moved out.
Don't forget, that is what was alleged. And that was a lie.

Hawke

So what you are saying is that you do not believe what was reported in
newspapers and by the GAO. What would you accept as proof?

Dan

On 10/23/2011 5:09 PM, wrote:
On Oct 23, 5:46 pm, wrote:
On 10/22/2011 7:41 PM, wrote:



On Oct 22, 8:35 pm, wrote:
On 10/21/2011 5:43 PM, wrote:

On Oct 21, 4:08 pm, wrote:

You proved my point for me. The accusation was the Clinton people
"trashed" the White House. That sounds pretty severe to me. So what
really happened? Here is the list you gave: 62 keyboards, 26 cell
phones, two cameras, ten door knobs, and some medallions and signs were
removed.

I don't know about you, but I wouldn't even call taking 62 keyboards and
26 cell phones "damage" to the White House at all. But the fact is the
report doesn't show any real damage done or that there was recklessness
or disrespectful treatment of the White House itself at all.

You read the report and I did and to me what it said is that the claims
that the White House was trashed was a lie. From what I see in the
report whatever was done was minimal at best. Is that not right?

Hawke

You have a convient memory. Your statement was

"Two things: first the story you just told above is bogus and was
refuted
by numerous sources. There was no damage done to the white house by
the
Clintons. I'm surprised you didn't know that story was false."

Note the words NO DAMAGE. No means none. It does not mean only
$20,000 in damages. $20,000 is way above the threshold from
misdemeanor to felony.

Dan

You're really grasping this time. Removing some keyboards from the White
House or some phones isn't doing "damage" to the property. From the
report you ought to be able to tell the White House was not "damaged".
Certainly there was no wanton and intentional damage by disgruntled
people leaving the place like they were accused of.

I told you that this story had been refuted years ago and it was. When
the charges were looked at it was clear that the White House was in good
shape when the Clinton's left and it was not "damaged". If you want to
call anything short of a model home damaged then there is no discussing
the issue with you. I used to be a real estate agent. Believe me, I know
what it looks like when a property is damaged.

Me, I'd question the 20K in damage too. According to whom? What's the
value of 62 keyboards and some used cell phones? 1000 bucks. The point
is there was a claim made that the Clinton's left the White House in
very bad condition and it sounded like it was done on purpose. These
claims were made by republican partisans. Then we see the report and
it's clear those claims were not true. But if you want go ahead and
believe that the Clinton's left a trail of destruction behind them when
they left, be my guest. I have no say so if you want to believe utter lies.

Hawke

I do not believe utter lies. I do believe what is in the GAO official
report. The 20k was according to he GAO.
The point is you said no damage and that is not true according to an
official government report.

It sounds as if it was done on purpose because it was. Removing key
caps is deliberate as in done on purpose.

If you want to believe there was no damage, be my guest. Just
remember not many people agree with you.

Dan

What I believe is that the White House was left in good condition when
the Clinton's left it. I also believe that the accusation that it was
"trashed" when they left was a lie. I'm sure it wasn't left like a model
home when the Clinton's left but I don't think that there was anything
other than incidental and minor damage that would occur any time a large
group of people moved out of a large building. I wouldn't be surprised
that the White House was in even worse condition when the first Bush
moved out. Those kinds of things happen all the time. I doubt that even
you think the White House was trashed when the Clinton's moved out.
Don't forget, that is what was alleged. And that was a lie.

Hawke

So what you are saying is that you do not believe what was reported in
newspapers and by the GAO. What would you accept as proof?

Dan


The accusation was that the White House was trashed by the Clintons. I'm
telling you that is completely false, a lie. It was not trashed. What
the report said was there was some damage. It did not say the place was
trashed. So Dan, was it trashed or not? And what does trashed mean? A
little bit of minor damage or it was wrecked? In my book trashed means
it was left like it was trash. Did the report say it was in that kind of
condition? No. So it was a lie that the place was trashed.

Hawke