I have little idea and care even less, myself.

The source material, ie article published by the Tribune, was completely unwilling to come to that same conclusion in the story. So to me it seems more likely that it is in dispute on that basis rather than that is is indsiputable due to wholly unsupported comments here.

But again it doesn't matter at ALL. It has zero relevance to this discussion. None. No really.

Rights are especially important when they relate to people you dislike doing things you also dislike. That situation is exactly when you lose your rights. Like maybe think about if that's is what is happening here.

It matters in that if no one is contesting the accusations, they are, in fact, facts. That he staged the thing is a fact. Period.

Repeated assertion is no substitute for evidence. Good Soviet technique that one.

The Tribune refusing to come to the conclusion that such is a fact is a conspiracy? Something stranger? Could be, I guess. A less likely than an alternate interpretation of the evidence I've seen here. But i don't care at all about it. Zero.

It still has absolutely no baring at all on the discussion of rights erosion.