What this article is citing is direct refutation of the claim.
Moreover this evidence is valuable because it came unprompted. The evidence may noy be devastating, but its not unsubstantiated either.
I don't think anyone contends its ok for any party to share information with the govt that it deems important. But whether that sharing happened is not the claim. The question is who directed the work.
The original assertion that the DHS did not direct the work is under suspicion, becauae the alibi came from a related party that is now know to be in a business partnership with the same party that is defending itself from the allegations of illegal 1st amendment interference.
And now theres 3rd party information that refutes the alibi.
What this article is citing is direct refutation of the claim.
Moreover this evidence is valuable because it came unprompted. The evidence may noy be devastating, but its not unsubstantiated either.
I don't think anyone contends its ok for any party to share information with the govt that it deems important. But whether that sharing happened is not the claim. The question is who directed the work.
The original assertion that the DHS did not direct the work is under suspicion, becauae the alibi came from a related party that is now know to be in a business partnership with the same party that is defending itself from the allegations of illegal 1st amendment interference.
And now theres 3rd party information that refutes the alibi.