Clinton to be interrogated by the FBI, Top Aide has already been interrogated. - Polidicks

[QUOTE=proboardslol;50280662][URL]https://www.google.com/search?q=interrogation+definition&oq=interrogation+de&aqs=chrome.1.69i57j0l3.3555j0j4&client=ms-android-att-us&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8#safe=off&q=interrogate+definition[/URL] "ask questions of (someone, [B]especially[/B] a suspect or a prisoner) closely, aggressively, or formally." Its a specific word choice by Putin's state controlled media to discredit Hillary Clinton. Interrogation connotates that a crime has been committed, rather than being investigated. It brings to mind images of a perpetrator handcuffed to a chair in a dark, cigarette smoke filled room while two guys in suspenders play good cop bad cop to intimidate information out of a criminal. Even if that is exactly what's happening, why do we allow rt as a source, period? Would we allow North Korean state media as a source on all thing Kim Jong Un related?[/QUOTE] "Especially" =/= "exclusively". Whether they used the word "questioned" or "interrogated", or "interviewed", the meaning is the same regardless of connotation. Besides, she is [I]suspected[/I] of having committed a crime, hence the investigation in the first place. Also if this article is propaganda, so is anything covering the election produced by CNN.

[QUOTE=Morbo!!!;50280833]"Especially" =/= "exclusively". Whether they used the word "questioned" or "interrogated", or "interviewed", the meaning is the same regardless of connotation. Besides, she is [I]suspected[/I] of having committed a crime, hence the investigation in the first place.[/QUOTE] You don't honestly believe that all words are neutral do you? Especially in journalism? Especially when it comes to russian state media? You think they just said "interrogation" because that was the first word that came to their head? Or do you think maybe Putin has an agenda to push? Again, ignoring this specific story, RT is propaganda.

[QUOTE=butre;50272741]that's not the background check, that's the transfer form. background check is separate from the 4473. I have a mississippi enhanced firearms permit the background check happens when I get my permit, plus a rigorous screening process and mandatory firearms training.[/QUOTE] But the 4473 is a background check. :v:

[QUOTE=Hark;50273373][QUOTE]Rosen said that Palmer was paid for the jobs she booked and nothing more -- a practice that he described as standard throughout the modeling industry as a whole. The Trump campaign had a similar argument. "In regards to Ms. Palmer, this is standard practice in the modeling industry and the visa application form is inadequate to address the practice of the industry," a Trump spokesperson said in an email.[/QUOTE][/QUOTE] [QUOTE]Experts say that the firm was required by law to pay the amount stated on Palmer's visa -- in this case, [B]$75,000 a year[/B]. Even more egregious, they say, was that the Trump agency didn't pay the "prevailing wage" determined by the U.S. government (which is based on the industry and location). The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services agency (USCIS) confirmed that a sponsoring company "must pay the actual wage or the prevailing wage, whichever is higher" -- meaning [B]it was illegal to pay Palmer below either listed wage.[/B] "Employers may never pay below the prevailing wage," the agency said in a statement. For Palmer, the prevailing wage acknowledged by the Trump agency on the visa application was roughly $45,000 a year. Instead, she made less than $30,000 over three years from modeling jobs for clients ranging from Conde Nast to Saks Fifth Avenue. ... [B]In the end, Palmer netted $4,985 over three years ..., a figure acknowledged by the Trump agency.[/B][/QUOTE] The prevailing wage was $45k/year, Palmer's visa application said Trump Model Management would pay her at least 75k/year. She was paid about 10k/year for three years and that's before taxes and TMM sucking up administrative costs. But, sure, keep on defending illegal activity and human exploitation.

[QUOTE=cody8295;50269940]Hoping Obama has an epiphany and doesn't interfere[/QUOTE] He constantly interfered in politically prudent criminal investigations during his tenure in office. I don't see why he won't try to again, especially with his recent No Fucks Given attitude.

[QUOTE=agentfazexx;50271136]I would rather have him than a criminal run the country.[/QUOTE] You'd rather have a criminal than a criminal run the country? Trump isn't pristine clean either. He's a monstrous shitbag who gets away with a lot of questionable shit thanks to his perceived wealth. He's just generally a terrible human being. For real. I'd rather have someone who actually knows how to play politics properly, than a loon who can't run anything but real estate without bankrupting it instantly as your head of state. At least Hillary won't straight up try and ruin international relations without meaning to do it.

[QUOTE=Matthew0505;50281762][url]http://www.reuters.com/article/us-clinton-emails-cnn-idUSKCN0XW2B7[/url][/QUOTE] Interview would be the correct word here, yes. Interrogate is not.