re: #496 Your ad could be here.

You’re not certain about what, exactly? That it is possible that it is a fake? It is impossible that it is a fake? Can you defend this statement?

The specific word to which I object is “quite”. “Quite” implies likelihood. I disagree at this time with the implication that it is likely to be a fake.

Not to my knowledge. Can you elaborate?

The original statement was that the strategy was a modified document, with additions and deletions that made it fake. Then Heartland released a statement that said the entire document was fake. Now they are saying that not only is the whole thing fake but parts of the other documents are fake.

Nor does not hinder the possibility of fakery.

You are correct, it does not. What it does, however, is allow reasonable doubt as to the truth of Heartland’s claim that it is a fake.

Quite the opposite, the burden of proof is always on the presenter of the leaks.

Actually, no. The claim “it is a fake” is tantamount to a claim of libel; defamation by written word. The first requirement of proving libel is proving that the document is fake.