By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

I just found out something really interesting...

Flashback 1992:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E0CE0D8143EF936A25753C1A964958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all




Officials of two of the news organizations involved, The Associated Press and Hearst Newspapers, said they had asked for Mr. Clinton's visa, passport, draft and citizenship records because of claims made to them by Republicans that Mr. Clinton, the Democratic Presidential nominee, had tried to renounce his citizenship in the 1960's.


http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E0CE7D91F31F935A35751C1A964958260


But they said that such an application was not listed in the appropriate index in immigration and naturalization files, and hence no search was conducted. Mr. Clinton was a Rhodes scholar at Oxford University in the late 1960's.

"You can't search through files if there are no files," said a spokesman for the Home Office in London when asked about an article in The Washington Post today that said the office had conducted a "comprehensive" search of immigration files for information about Mr. Clinton.


I'm just pointing out that this isn't the first time something like this came into question. It's a normal smear tactic.

This, of course, is different because now they are questioning where the person was born and whether or not an existing government certified document is valid. A much more volatile subject. Just wanted to put this story into perspective, I'm not arguing any points anymore.



I would cite regulation, but I know you will simply ignore it.