So you had 5 days to retract and didn't - pathetic much?
You declared that Obama had hidden his past based on this Insight article (which used totally unattributed sources - red flag) and hyped on Fox. You never
questioned the truth of it; you just declared him guilty.
As you now declare Clinton guilty the same flimsy "evidence" that has already proven unreliable.
No, he is correct. You declared you're sticking to the allegation although it is without any proof whatsoever.
Clinton denies it, so if you continue to tout it with no evidence, well, that goes to your character, not hers.
And what evidence do they provide?
Is that a reliable source or has it been confirmed by any one else?
And what exactly is the allegation?
That anonymous "sources" say that anonymous
researchers "connected " not to Clinton but the "Clinton camp" did a background check and discovered this terrible secret.
The allegation is not that Clinton actually leaked anything, but that "sources" say what turns out to be a "scurrilous lie" (Obama's word) was uncovered.
Who are the sources and what credibility do they have?
Who do the "sources" work for?
What pattern? Who has Clinton smeared before?
The right has the most to gain by doing the foul deed and blaming Clinton - a twofer smear.
Rumor-mongering, mudslinging, oh what sport for the unscrupulous!
Ah good ole carpro - resort to snarky personal comment instead of addressing the substance of my post, to wit: on what evidence are you basing your smear on Clinton(that she is in any way responsible for the lie against Obama), now that you have dropped your smear against Obama (that he hid his past)?
The question is about Sen. Clinton and how she has smeared anyone, not whether her husband lied about having sex. Are we pretending not to know that?
I don't recall Sen. Clinton or her husband smearing Ms. Lewinski. Evidence other than recollection?
I did read my post and the main part of it was not about you at all, unless you count debunking your accusation and asking for evidence to be about you and not about the topic. The comment about sport was meant for whoever enjoys rumor-mongering and mudslinging; if you take that to be you, well.....
Clinton denies it, so if you continue to tout it with no evidence, well, that goes to your character, not hers.
Wow! what a zinger that was - if you like, I'll rephrase: Clinton denies it, so if anyone continues to tout it with no evidence, well, that goes to his character, not hers. Ok, all better now? I apologize for making it personal rather than general.
Nonsense, you were trying to goad me as you are again with this - what a surprise! - personal attack.:laugh:
What did Insight, which has been proven unreliable and unprofessional on the main aspect of their story, allege her investigators actually did? Go back and read carefully while trying to distinguish between "sources close to" and her actual investigators. Keep in mind that Insight never provides any evidence that this rumor came from Sen. Clinton's campaign.
Which story? The part about Obama attending a "madrassa" has been rather thoroughly debunked. If they are standing by this - Fox retracted - in the face of the evidence, that goes to their lack of credibility.
Not really, as it is their claim, it is their responsibilty to provide evidence. They already have been wrong about the "madrassa" so that does not bode well for the likeliness of this unevidenced story.
Lacking evidence period, but certainly your choice.