Lol @ 240 arguing over some pictures that were taken 20+ years ago. Is that really relevant?
i said earlier, i think the pictures are beautiful and I appreciate them

But from a political stance, she is lecturing people and saying we need to follow the law - and there's a big Q how she worked in 95 when she got the visa to work in 96.
she has a history of lying - claiming she wrote the speech, then letting a buddy fall on 2 paragraphs lifted straight from michelle obama.
Not a big deal, she isn't going to be making policy - BUT trump uses her as an example of how immigrants SHOULD do it, then she should be following the law if she is lecturing others and helping to make policy - and by giving speeches, she is.
I understand why she didn't want the limelight. may have lied about another marriage. did lie about her speech. May have lied about work pass. Lied about college degree.
I am fine if trump wins - i'm fascinated by a 911 truther as president. But for this thread, yes, it doesn't look good. trump's lawyer will not explain what compensation and how she worked in 1995. he 'supposes' she must not have been paid for it - pure speculation.