Nice to know we have Democrat operatives trying to squash this story.
It is not fair or reasonable to characterize him in that manner. He is expressing a reasonable skepticism over what has been discovered so far. The man is a lawyer, and he is probably speaking from the perspective of what sort of valid evidence would be needed to pursue this.
Yes, it stinks, but innuendo and double meanings do not prove the case to the extent that the law would require for a conviction.
We should not be attacking people as Democrat agents simply because they are more skeptical.
He’s on every thread about the Clintons trying to get people not to comment on the story by calling them names and claiming there is nothing there. Not a very good lawyer, well, actually, a typical Clinton lawyer claiming nothing is there in the face of overwhelming evidence.