Hillary's earpiece

[Danzig]

http://www.snopes.com/clinton-secret-earpiece-debate/

This is for the 15 idiots, whoever they are.
And good luck, cheeky bird.

[RHT2004]

Originally Posted by Danzig

http://www.snopes.com/clinton-secret-earpiece-debate/

This is for the 15 idiots, whoever they are.
And good luck, cheeky bird.

Pathetic

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Danzig

http://www.snopes.com/clinton-secret-earpiece-debate/

This is for the 15 idiots, whoever they are.
And good luck, cheeky bird.

This just shows that Snopes has very little credibility. I'm not saying that Hillary had an earpiece. I have no idea whether she did or not. But neither does Snopes. How can they call something false, when they have no idea whether it's true or not? If they want to say that the claims are unsubstantiated, or they want to say there is no proof of an earpiece, that would be fine. But for them to say that it is definitely false shows that they are willing to take a stance, even when they don't have any information. How can they categorically claim that she was not wearing an earpiece? Another ridiculous thing about Snopes' claim is that they say the lack of a wire going into her ear is proof there was no earpiece. The people who claim there was an earpiece claim that it was a wireless earpiece. So if the claim is that Hillary is wearing a wireless earpiece, how would the lack of a wire be exculpatory?

For the record, I did not vote in this poll (in this thread).

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

This just shows that Snopes has very little credibility. I'm not saying that Hillary had an earpiece. I have no idea whether she did or not. But neither does Snopes. How can they call something false, when they have no idea whether it's true or not? If they want to say that the claims are unsubstantiated, or they want to say there is no proof of an earpiece, that would be fine. But for them to say that it is definitely false shows that they are willing to take a stance, even when they don't have any information. How can they categorically claim that she was not wearing an earpiece? Another ridiculous thing about Snopes' claim is that they say the lack of a wire going into her ear is proof there was no earpiece. The people who claim there was an earpiece claim that it was a wireless earpiece. So if the claim is that Hillary is wearing a wireless earpiece, how would the lack of a wire be exculpatory?

For the record, I did not vote in this poll (in this thread).

wait....she has a wire all down her back as evidence for them...but the actual ear piece is wireless....
amazing

so, since you didn't vote, I guess my post was for 16 idiots

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Danzig

wait....she has a wire all down her back as evidence for them...but the actual ear piece is wireless....
amazing

so, since you didn't vote, I guess my post was for 16 idiots

http://www.infowars.com/was-hillary-...dential-forum/

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/201...arys-earpiece/

[CheekyBird]

Originally Posted by Danzig

http://www.snopes.com/clinton-secret-earpiece-debate/

This is for the 15 idiots, whoever they are.
And good luck, cheeky bird.

Can't fix stupid, can you?

[CheekyBird]

Perhaps Hillary borrowed the communications device from Dubya.