[rue]

That dissection is pretty poorly made. First, the author “paraphrases” Applebaum’s use of “vicious and spurious”:

> I can’t directly say the allegations are false.

Then, a few lines below, the author quotes Applebaum as saying:

>> I want to be clear: the accusations of criminal sexual misconduct against me are entirely false.

I’m not taking sides here (it’s important that possible abuse is brought to light!) but this lawyer is straining his credibility.

[acqq]

If you quote Appelbaum, quote the Bynum's "translation" too:

> Appelbaum: I want to be clear: the accusations of criminal sexual misconduct against me are entirely false.

> Bynum's translation: I’ll never be convicted of a crime.

That is, Bynum claims that Appelbaum never claims "I haven't done it" and instead intentionally uses "criminal" (versus "civil," for example).

http://litigation.findlaw.com/filing-a-lawsuit/civil-cases-v...

[draw_down]

Nope, when he says the word "false" it's specifically in reference to criminal sexual misconduct. Read carefully, because that was written carefully.