If you're going to slander, in the worst ways imaginable, someone who is supposedly on your own team -- there should be a standard of quality in the sauce provided far beyond what was actually provided by OP.
The Hindustan Times article by Shamik Banerjee listed in the slideshow says
In fact, the allegations against Erika Kirk regarding her charity work in Romania appear to be wholly unverified claims circulating on social media, with no formal charges or investigations reported by credible sources like the US State Department or Romanian authorities.
i.e. the sauce provided is sauce to the contrary.
It's bad taste, libel, lazy, clickbait (title says "Think on it a little..." when clearly no thought was given or effort made to even read what is listed as evidence).
If you're going to slander, in the worst ways imaginable, someone who is supposedly on your own team -- there should be a standard of quality in the sauce provided far beyond what was actually provided by OP.
The Hindustan Times article by Shamik Banerjee listed in the slideshow says
i.e. the sauce provided is sauce to the contrary.
It's bad taste, libel, lazy, clickbait (title says "Think on it a little..." when clearly no thought was given or effort made to even read what is listed as evidence).
"US State Department" credible? ok
If I hear you correctly, it sounds like you think the Hindustan Times article is ridiculous.
But then why did the OP use it to begin with?
I'm ok with calling the article crazy and incorrect if that's what you want, but then doesn't that leave the OP without any evidence at all?