The new york times is better but not by much. apparently working through esp cecelia kang says that "None of it was true. While Mr. Alefantis has some prominent Democratic friends in Washington and was a supporter of Mrs. Clinton, he has never met her, does not sell or abuse children, and is not being investigated by law enforcement for any of these claims."
Only the last of those claims can be verified without a proper investigation which they admit hasnt happened and thanks to our loonie private eye and the now widespread posse of overexicited redditors, that probably wont happen.
Krazelic, legitimate video footage of a confession to corruption being on a questionable youtube account to is not made less real by the associon whereas the authority of a pundit's blatantly biased accout of an event is somewhat exaserbated by being on a glorified partisan blog.
This need you have for me to explain the nuamces between hard evidence and punditry in every thread is getting as tiresome as the constant attempts at threading together the facsimile of a gotcha moment from past posts.
On this board? I have no comment but the booze pixy who lives in my ear would like it to be widely known that he has none and never has had any affiliation with the danish flower yakuza or their equine affiliates.
Bookmarks