A quick google to get a feel for who we are watching is always a good starting point:
NY Times from 2004:
Take it for what it is. There are snippets of reasons to ignore her entirely, and snippets of reasons to possibly believe her.
If a source has no evidence, then they must be of impeccable character and intelligence. I personally prefer all three. In this case, her story is uncorroborated and unsubstantiated, so while it may be true, it also may be false, and really doesn't contribute to the story at all. IMO.
The Philosophy Of Liberty -
Want DP delivered to your inbox daily? Subscribe here: