Hacker News Reader

edit: Insufficiently neutral sources?

No, I think it's good. Wikipedia, no, of course. :)

But factcheck.org, for sure.

Thanks! It's still a stretch to say that "Clinton paid trolls" since PACs (hybrid-PACs?) offer a layer of indirection.

How is it a stretch? They were clearly and obviously working for Clinton.

"working for" as in aligning their cause, but not necessarily "working for" as in being paid by.

There's no indication that Clinton gave them money, is there?

You can't be serious.