You are not out of bounds asking any of those people to answer for what they said, but please stop asking me to.

There's no way to accuse someone of lying "with absolutely sincere respect", but at any rate: I've actually answered the question you're pressing me on, clearly, elsewhere on the thread --- in fact, you literally replied to a comment where I did that --- and am no longer interested in this conversation.

For whatever it's worth:

> albeit perhaps unintentionally

You've clearly said you do not believe the journalists have committed crimes, which means your calling them "assistants" to Snowden unintentionally perpetuates the innuendo that they were criminal collaborators.

The sincere respect is aimed at your influential role on this forum, which is the reason what you say ought to be challenged, not at the innuendo.

(Also FWIW I can't find an answer to the question of why you would call the Snowden journalists "his informal team of assistants.")

Note, unintentionally -- When an influential voice on HN albeit unintentionally spreads false and damaging innuendo, then says he should not be challenged, what is the appropriate way to say that, yes, in fact he should be challenged?

(His view that I called him a liar does not make it so.)