It does not provide any evidence that the recipients of the funds took part in the capitol hill riot, but instead acknowledges in lack thereof. The title claims the recipients where "involved", but the article never determines in what way.
I want to be clear, I don't defend those individuals or condone their views or actions, but just feel this article is mostly a PR stunt.
It does not provide any evidence that the recipients of the funds took part in the capitol hill riot, but instead acknowledges in lack thereof. The title claims the recipients where "involved", but the article never determines in what way.
I want to be clear, I don't defend those individuals or condone their views or actions, but just feel this article is mostly a PR stunt.