Youre the one missing the point. The author claims to be an investigative journalist who "follows the facts". They provide examples of big mike registering to vote as male. Thats fact. In the very next sentence they say, without showing any corroborating evidence, that it was likely a clerical error. Even the language they use proves its simply their opinion that the conclusion is based on.
What are you trying to say by asking "what is new?"
I feel like english is not your first language so im gonna need some clarification. What book is being promoted here? So youre saying there is evidence of a clerical error but its just not listed here?
Youre the one missing the point. The author claims to be an investigative journalist who "follows the facts". They provide examples of big mike registering to vote as male. Thats fact. In the very next sentence they say, without showing any corroborating evidence, that it was likely a clerical error. Even the language they use proves its simply their opinion that the conclusion is based on.
What are you trying to say by asking "what is new?"
The aritcle is a promo piece about book....it was not a "proof Michelle is man or woman"
based on a voting registration.
I feel like english is not your first language so im gonna need some clarification. What book is being promoted here? So youre saying there is evidence of a clerical error but its just not listed here?
Yo no comprende