Plausible deniability was the intent, no doubt. But the deniability of this sleaze is no longer plausible.
“But the deniability of this sleaze is no longer plausible.”
Yet, there are folks here denying it.
sitetest
“But the deniability of this sleaze is no longer plausible.”
You assured me on another thread that “truth is an absolute defence” on these matters. So if this guy Wesley Donehue had a site about Fred Thompson that was truthful, can you fairly condemn it and call that ‘smearing’ and ‘sleaze’? What exactly did it say that was non-truthful that makes it ‘sleaze’?
Or do you have a double-standard?
(For the record, for others: I condemn this site and similar tactics and behaviors either by other candidates and campaigns or by posters on FR.)