I am disgusted to read that from you. Is it slinging mud? Then what have you said in last para of your quot?
Fair for you but stooping low for me?
Lacking money trail or not bear in mind Sharif is holding public office when he own assets but IK never held Public funds when he had assets. Sharif took money out of the country and IK brought it back home.
Watson, I'm so sorry for losing it. Fact is that since you've left the Private Eye business, it has been going downhill. No new clients. All the record management is disorganised. I have not been able to hire your replacement, so you can understand the turmoil I am going through.
So, after the apology and the explanation of why I said what I said, I still need to kindly bring something to your attention:
I understand what you're trying to do:
i. First, you guys deny the fact of IK absconding from the paternity suit or Jemima bringing up her stepdaughter from IK, by trying to state that there is no proof of these facts.
ii. Then you mudsling on other's kids as being manhole cover thieves because there's literally no proof Ephedrine Abbasi's sons stealing one right in front of a CCTV...
iii. Then you guys hopelessly connect the two that since Ephedrine's son has no proof, and IK's fathering lovechild has no proof then both are non-facts.
That's a very (old) but very silly way to cover-up your own side's fault.
Difference in this case is that the claim made about Ephedrine's son being a manhole cover thief is just hearsay. No reputable reference is quoted. However, in case of IK fathering the lovechild, the absconding is in the court document which is now a matter of public record, and Jemima's own admission of raising her stepdaughter from USA along with Tyrian's pictures with her and with Suleman and Qasim.
If Tyrian has no link to IK, then why the hell was a complete stranger (Jemima) given custody of Tyrian when she was a kid?
The last sentence of your comment is just the regurgitation of what IK touts (Naeem, Faisal & Co.) come and say on the telly. What is your point? That if an MNA from 2002 lied on his papers, he's not punishable under 62,63 because he is an MNA from the opposition? My god that is some silly logic.
In my opinion, ehtasaab should be first done of those who claim to be the cleanest and shout loudly in favour of ehtasaab - so that it should be exposed how dirty these "political fankaars" themselves are.
You and I both know that IK lied on his nomination papers regarding his assets. Whether he stole from public money or not in addition, a lie is a lie. Next you will use IK's famous excuse "glitch ho gai ho gi", or something like that.
But anyway, my apologies for the bitter previous post.