Facts actually fortify the case. In a court room we can only know that which is evidence. A newspaper clipping would suffice as evidence. To say otherwise is imprudent and only bolsters the case that he has the moral high ground. (which he does not).

Did some one write it? Was it printed on news print in a print shop? Is it in the perspective of a witness? Does the paper that printed it have a liability if they publish misinformation? Does calling it "Fake News" weaken the evidence or does it stand on its own?

You've not engaged with a single argument and I can only accuse you of purging history and standing on the side of history burners.