>>defend them as a source
No, I’m pointing out the FACT that you and the “Filtering” MSM labeling them as a “hoax” (using only your own definition of “hoax”) site does not negate the plethora of information elsewhere that supports the observation that human trafficking and perversion are among the fruits rendered by Hillary Clinton, the pathologically lying email/evidence destroyer, and her ISIL funding associates.
Which is entirely beside the point, and just another attempt from you to change the subject.
The entire point of this seemingly endless dialogue between us was that you were incredulous when I pointed out the story was just a rumor with no substance behind it, originating from, well since you don’t like the word “hoax”, let’s say a website with an anonymous author who steals information from other websites and inserts false information into those stories before he posts them.
You’ve basically already acknowledged that, you aren’t even arguing that point anymore. You’re just grasping at straws to try and save face.