Gaffney has a very personal axe to grind with Norquist and has had for many years -- something he fails to mention at any point in this piece.
It is not neutral journalism nor is it competent investigative reporting. This screed offers no proof -- only innuendo, using safe words like "reportedly," "seemingly" and "if true." These are notorious modifiers signifying that the writer wants to make an assertion they do not have the facts to back up -- but its just too important to the story to let go.
Indeed, Gaffeny goes so far as to site an opinion writer offering an opinion about Khan's duties at the DOT as proof of the fact of an allegation he is making.
For example, I could say "A well known Freeper he, according to at least one source who wishes to remain nameless, likes to take chickens to bed with him" and be well within my rights under U.S. law. I blacken your name without actually doing so because I am quoting an unnamed source and not doing so in the context of knowing the statement to be factually accurate. (P.S. -- For purposes of clarification, I am in fact suggesting no such thing about Milford421 or anyone else on Free Republic.... I am merely stating an example.)
An article of this type would never stand up against the libel laws in Britain (which I mention only because a libel charge is virtually impossible to sustain in the U.S. courts thanks to Times v. Sullivan).
Vindication? Hardly. Rumormongering, almost certainly.
winga-ping-ping.
It most certainly is vindication.
As evidenced by your comment, "It is not neutral journalism nor is it competent investigative reporting. This screed offers no proof -- only innuendo, using safe words like "reportedly," it is clear that you have NOT read the articles, nor have you researched the matter on your own.
There most certainly IS evidence to support Mr. Gaffney's assertions.
Opinion writer? Hardly. You need to do your homework. Gaffney has been right on Norquist.