That they put a frickin’ LIGHT on it doesn’t imply they put anything else on it. Sometimes a light is just so you can see better.
True. Except she was reading the whole FRICKIN' time.
Not if BOTH podiums had a frickin' light. But Trump's podium not NOT have a frickin' light.
AND - Hillary did NOT turn her frickin' light on, or off. Therefore it was a REMOTE CONTOLLED frickin' light.
AND - Hillary's campaign formally requested that they be allowed to "adjust" her frickin' podium to "visually equalize" it with the taller Trump.
AND - tablet screens ALSO happen to have frickin' lights! And they're fricken' remote controlled! And they have fricken' TEXT on them.
Frickin' REMOTE CONTROLLED LIGHTED INSTALLED TEXT.
That Trump did NOT have.
What part of Hillary wants to start a nuclear war don't you GET, you frickin' jackass? You think this is a frickin' GAME?
Go "imply" yourself - HARD.
I’ve checked the photos. That section in his doesn’t have any noticeable slanted glass/plastic as does hers. And who wants a light pointed up into their eyes? There’s a little divider between the light and the notes, which seems more likely to block the light than to allow it to light the notes.
“If what the debate commission says is true, then Why wasn’t Donald Trump’s lectern lit?
Secondly, and more importantly, the natural follow-up to such an explanation would have been: “Who was in charge of this light, turning it on and off”? It was obviously not the candidate herself. So who was in control of it?
That’s the question, that becomes uncomfortable to answer… because it instantly confirms an external party -separate from the candidate- was in control of an electronic medium connected to the lectern of that candidate.”