Having gone to this site, www.Democrats.com and scoped out the referenced (?) article(?), I can report the following:
1.) After each "eyewitness" account, there immediately follows a qualifying statement ("...or so I heard.."; "...I was told by others...").
Conclusion: This easily makes a Nat'l Enquirer, Star or Globe article look like a well-research and footnoted effort.
2.) Every accusation starts out speculatively, with one overriding concluding statement that has obviously ignored any other evidence presented in the accusation.
Conclusion: The author of this scree wanted very much to sound objective, but threw the objectivity out the window in broad daylight so as to make his conclusion the focus of paragraph. Cheap propagandist trick.
If you want to sniff out the truth, send in woofer.
LOL! It sounds as if they interviewed the customers of a hair salon.