To all of the facts you offer up I say, "So what?" As I recall, Alamoudi's moneyw as returned to him... I see no proof that any of the people you site received access to anything because of Norquist or Khan's influence... As to the lack of refutation, how does one prove a negative? Its all sound and fury signifying nothing... show me the quid pro quo.
Just because Gaffney says "it seems beyond dispute" doesn't mean anything is beyond dispute.
You see no proof? You ignore the proof.
"To all of the facts you offer up I say, "So what?"
Yep, that pretty much says it all. Thanks for clarifying.
"I see no proof that any of the people you site received access to anything because of Norquist or Khan's influence..."
It's been meticulously documented in the articles and links. Putting your fingers in your ears and screaming is not a debating technique on these boards.
In your world, ignorance is bliss...
"As to the lack of refutation, how does one prove a negative?"
It isn't a negative. Of course, if the information really was wrong, Norquist certainly would have filed a libel suit...he has the means.
He hasn't. He can't, of course, because the information is true.
His failure to file a suit only serves to strengthen Gaffney's statements.
"show me the quid pro quo."
You might want to look up what "quid pro quo" is...
As far as proof goes, I've given it to you...you chose to ignore it.
Sound and fury? That's all you've shown me in this discussion...nothing more.