“On the contrary, I said that perhaps LQH was a Clinton operative.”
Well, there’s no evidence for that either, so why would you assume it?
“So, When the Washington post issues a clarification, should we take that at face value?”
Sure, unless there is some good reason to suspect that it’s not a truthful clarification.
“Could it be that they were “advised” to retract or “clarify?””
Anything “could” be, but speculating about that when there is nor a hint of evidence is not just fruitless, it’s counterproductive.
“Why would 0b0z0 mention the trip to Pakistan 3 days after the passport files’ breach? He must have been forced to do so because NOBODY knew about it then.”
That’s valid speculation, but there’s no need to try to pull in LQH to make sense of that scenario. LQH just makes the story more dramatic, since once he is in the mix, now you have intrigue, murder, and hints of a cover-up. That’s probably why the Washington Post reporter conflated the two cases in the first place, to spice up his article.
““On the contrary, I said that perhaps LQH was a Clinton operative.”
“Well, there’s no evidence for that either, so why would you assume it?”
I said: “One educated guess,........” Am I not allowed to guess?
“So, When the Washington post issues a clarification, should we take that at face value?”
“Sure, unless there is some good reason to suspect that it’s not a truthful clarification.”
You’re entitled to your opinion. Did you think that protecting 0b0z0 would be a good reason?
“Could it be that they were “advised” to retract or “clarify?””
“Anything “could” be, but speculating about that when there is nor a hint of evidence is not just fruitless, it’s counterproductive.”
Wow! “COULD” you “possibly” be wrong? Yet, you allowed me a “ conditional speculation” below:
“That’s valid speculation, but there’s no need to try to pull in LQH to make sense of that scenario.”
It looks to me that we’ll have to agree to disagree.
I’ll leave it at that.