I recommend caution in believing this. It may be true. or it may be the classic Clintonian move of spreading rumors of a much-worse scandal and then disproving them in an attempt to deflect attention from the already existing facts, and puncture the credibility of those who believed the made up rumors.
This may be true and it may be false but either way it’s better to wait a bit of confirmation,
Kind of like when CBS’s Bob Schieffer said Clinton was in a “purple-faced rage” at Ken Starr when he was video-taped at his dispostion hearing...
Only to have everyone watch anticipating the theatrics only to have Clinton answer all the questions calmly...
To this day, Schieffer has never answered for that out-right lie.
Beware of false leads. The Dems are very good at this: leaking false info for you to parade out in public and then proving you wrong, making you look foolish, thus redirecting away from the truth.
I do like, though, the drip-drip-drip of info as it keeps the narrative going so the White Hut cannot say the info's old/it's time to move on, etc.
This crossed my mind also.
Beck has claimed since the first day that this was about guns, looks like he was right. Even Rush has alluded to gun running.
Waiting until the next election is not very helpful, at least not to the Republic.