Here, I'll assert that again.
Willow, at the behest of Bob and Zenia, had the article pulled from the Huffington Post.
Fact, like it or not.
She should have been forced out.
Not only do you know it was pulled by Willow, but also that she did so at the behest of Bob and Zenia? Did she make her nefarious, interest-conflicting motive public? Did she confide in people? Did she leave a written track record of this information, that would be highly damaging to both her and her husband's career?
Or is that all just guesswork from 'credible sources'? If they are sitting on a smoking gun, hard evidence, then why don't they act on it?
I am in the end not unwilling to believe the article was pulled at Willow's request, or even while acting at the behest of TWDC, but that is still nothing irregular. The motive could still be journalistic shortcomings on the part of the author. Who reports that and with which ulterior motive is not relevant to the quality standards and journalistic integrity of HuffPo or Willow.
If that article was removed for reasons of censorship, surely the author would protest? Somewhere, at some point? His utter lack of protest is still the main argument nothing nefarious happened.
And this is not a budding inconsequential reporter. This is a billionaire heir close to the heart of one of the world's greatest media conglomerates, and a sworn enemy of TWDC at that.
Also, Huff staff have a long, proud history of getting up in arms over infringements of their editorial liberty. Why are they silent too?
Are all sources perhaps circle-quoting each other? Sources at the HuffPo repeating rumours they heard from outside, only to in turn pass these on to outside sources again, who now by having their own rumours 'confirmed' think the rumours originate from within?
