re: #48 blueraven

They claimed they were new. I’m not sure that’s true. You could pile through the fact checking sites to see if those exact documents had already been used in debunking the stories. WaPo’s fact checker just linked to previous debunkings of the same claims. Either way the documents didn’t show anything new, same old stuff and still not true despite the new claims.
Actually the only “new” thing we have on the story today appears to be the documents supporting Mitt’s claim that a transition team took over in 1999. Even that’s not really new because that’s what the fact checkers have been telling us for a while now.