re: #509 kirkspencer

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.

OK.

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.

Sources for all of this? When did they ever claim the strategy was merely a modified document? When did they claim that parts of other documents are fake, as opposed to might be fake?

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.

Sure, which no one doubted.

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.

Oh, let the anonymous leaker sue them for libel then. The burden of proof is still on the releasers.