Don't put words in my mouth. In comment #52 I said the judge found pro se plaintif Sinclair to be credible, not anything about the judge "verifying the credibility of anything Sinclair said or wrote about." You mixed to things there: the judge verifying what Sinclair said (he didn't) and the judge finding Sinclair's account to be credible (the judge did).
Here is a web definition of credible:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/credible
"Definition of CREDIBLE:
"1: offering reasonable grounds for being believed "
To prevail, IIRC, Axelrod's legal team had to prove that Sinclair was not credible either by smearing him (as you have done to him and to me) or by proving that what Sinclair said was factually false. Axelrod tried to do both but failed to do either one. Sinclair, pro se, prevailed.
The judge found Sinclair's pro se legal defense to the effect that Axelrod's team had failed to disprove his allegations against Obama to be credible, i.e. "offering reasonable grounds for being believed."
______________________________________
I smeared Sinclair!!!
How does one smear a convicted con-man, fraud, drug dealer, identity thief queer who gives b-jobs to strangers in the back seat of a limo?
Man, have you got your head up your ass on this one...but, as I said, the sinclairs of the world need suckers (pardon the pun) and if you are happy playing the role then go right ahead...there's a new one born every minute.