It invalidates the following part of his accusation:
“The fact that the same typo remains on this second version is an indication that it was not independently published but rather amended, suddenly. The fact that there was a typo, at all, in both versions indicates haste on the part of the DNC.”
Since the typo has been there since at least 2000, there was no “sudden” amendment and certainly no “haste.”
So it does not invalidate any of the essential elements of his analysis. I am sure Pen will get right back to you BT, as if he does not have anything more important to do.
Sure it does. There was no conspiracy to suddenly and hastily produce a certificate of nomination when the text has been consistent since at least 2000. You just won't admit it.