text: OK. Now I feel argumentative! In your mind, the fact they paid it back is proof that they they knew it wasn't theirs, and disproves that some staffer made a mistake. That is a bad bit of logic. I claim that they would pay it back by either scenario. If they knowingly stole it and this was discovered, they would pay it back (your scenario). If some staffer made a mistake, and this was pointed out, they would pay it back. So it is ridiculous to say them paying it back evidence of anything!
  
  Reading  up on it, it all sounds very complicated. Lamps were meant as gifts but a rug from the same person was a gift to the White House, for instance. 
  
  Anyway, who let the dogs out "spun" by declaring they "stole" it as an example of how naughty they were. At best one could claim there are questions as to how those items ended up with the Clintons. You also seem happy to spin it as outright theft when nothing supports that, and then you are troubled by anyone questioning that unsupportable claim.