And he didn't prove that he actually did it at all. I will trust him on that given his reputation but the information in the article is so vague and basic that if we solely rely on that thin evidence literally everyone can claim the same.
He has used that speculation to kind of refute other people's different speculations. So he did more than just report it... he bought into it and used it to tell other people they were wrong.
> The accusations that I am aware of are unsubstantiated falsehoods
Does he mean that people got mad at him for the three points you listed and started inventing stories about him as a result, or is he flat out denying those things happened at all?
reply