Disgraced X making a sensational story about a public figure was once viewed with more skepticism. It's just too thinly sourced. It comes down to whether you basically believe the "controversial figure" who was arrested for thrusting a human fetus towards Bill Clinton, on his own hearsay. The rest of the story is fluff in the public record.
Hence, anything that a rational reader could glean is already covered by "have already been published in outlets such as Politico and Rolling Stone," and astute readers know enough to doubt the revelation from the character giving it and the lack of independent corroboration. I have some stories about Obama to sell you if you really dig these turncoats-years-later-secret-information-come-to-light.
I wager the excitement over impeaching the credibility of the court is overruling very basic notions of how to process stories.
Same response. Let's have the former pro-choice people come 8 years later saying how strongly pro-abort justices actually just wanted to kill babies, and they had communicated in letters to the justices prior to their vote on the infanticide-driven agenda. Use some common sense here. If it regards a public figure, don't just assume allegations are proof. Especially when the story is sensational, and there isn't something like other witnesses, or documented invited-speaker and mutual correspondence. Hell, even then you're basically doing a McCarthy Act saying you were seen with prominent communists.