I almost guarantee that he had something to do with those racist/sexist comments. I find it unlikely that someone else would be controlling an account under his name publicly for YEARS without his knowledge.
Even if he himself didn't post the comments, he must have known that it was going on at the time and probably knows the person who did do it.
"I didn't do it - it was someone else under my name" is the equivalent of "the dog ate my homework". I definitely agree with you - there are key missing detail - conveniently so.
> I admit, the evidence is convincing to the onlooker.
That’s what I’m confused about. Why is the evidence so convincing? Why wouldn’t a simple rejection suffice?
“I didn’t write those things and was appalled when I read it for the first time not long ago.”
I feel like there are some key missing details to the story.