This is shaky as fuck. The senator himself didn't allege explicitly that it was, so the article immediately violated the proper ethics on how to handle news and claimed explicitly that it was, due to an investigation by the political candidate. But the candidate didn't claim that it was, he's just arguing that he could have and is speculating.
If you are going to say that it someone did X, or you are going to say that it looks like they did X, then that's a substantial difference. Otherwise, we create a ridiculous game of telephone where each subtle iteration gets more and more inaccurate.
You can repost the X-tweet from the candidate as an allegation, but this is disinformation since you know the political candidate doesn't have hard proof that it is him.
Post Reported for: Rule 12 - Falsehoods
Post Removed: Rule 12 - Falsehoods
This is shaky as fuck. The senator himself didn't allege explicitly that it was, so the article immediately violated the proper ethics on how to handle news and claimed explicitly that it was, due to an investigation by the political candidate. But the candidate didn't claim that it was, he's just arguing that he could have and is speculating.
If you are going to say that it someone did X, or you are going to say that it looks like they did X, then that's a substantial difference. Otherwise, we create a ridiculous game of telephone where each subtle iteration gets more and more inaccurate.
You can repost the X-tweet from the candidate as an allegation, but this is disinformation since you know the political candidate doesn't have hard proof that it is him.