you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 2 points 3 months ago*

I quoted the article. I'd love to see some evidence that it was wrong. That it was Martin's predecessor who commissioned the e:report, or, at the very least, that this wasn't "a friend of his".

Edit: if the article got those facts wrong, that sounds a lot like libel.

  • source
  • parent