(10-22-2016 06:11 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(10-22-2016 02:34 PM)OldOwlNewHeel2 Wrote:  Let's see if we can generalize what just happened here:

• Random story about Bill Clinton's staffers pulling pranks/acting stupidly;
• Unsupported conclusion that Hillary was personally involved;
• Implication that Hillary will repeat the behavior in the future;
• Implied negative judgment of Hillary.
  

Can you spot the error?

Here is the line from my link: Remember the infantile hijinks of the Clinton staff as they exited the White House?
It doesn't say BILL Clinton's staffers: it says Clinton staff.
I think you have zero evidence she was not involved or at least had no knowledge of it. But perhaps she was clueless about what was going on around her.
Maybe the Clinton staff will repeat the behavior in the future. Maybe not. That's why I said "I wonder..."
Google gives dozens of stories about the hi9jinks/practicaljokes/vandalism/whatever and the "theft" that was resolved with the return of some items and payment (from a dead broke couple) for others. Hardly a random story.

Hillary is supposedly so wonderfully qualified because she spent all those years as first lady being intimately involved in everything that was going on, but she knew nothing about this? Yeah, right, sure.

She's Forrest Gump.