Yes. It works for me because there's no other supporting evidence to the original claim. There was something published in a British paper, but no evidence whatsoever and it got the reason Bill Clinton was in Haiti incorrect.

Also Haiti did have a functioning government. They were in jail, but they had access to lawyers and other consular services. Their case went before a judge and there was a criminal process where they had rights.

Remember at the time there was actually a lot of pressure on Obama to intervene. Baptist leaders wrote an open letter to him to save these Baptist Missionaries.

In fact I just went to look something else up and found this Washington Times editorial excoriating the Obama Administration and Secretary Clinton for NOT intervening. This was the reality at the time. The narrative that Pizzagate created years later has no basis in the facts.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/feb/08/free-the-baptist-10-in-haiti/ This scandal can be filed in the bulging folder marked “No good deed goes unpunished.” To their credit, leaders of the Southern Baptist Convention have shown no such cynicism. In a letter to President Obama explaining that their volunteers in Haiti were motivated by a religious impulse to “love every person [God] has created,” the Christian do-gooders beseeched the president to “do everything within the authority of your office” to free their brothers and sisters. To date, the feckless State Department has done nothing useful to defend these U.S. citizens. “Obviously, this is a matter for the Haitian judicial system,” a disinterested Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton told reporters on Friday. Au contraire, Mrs. Clinton. What should be obvious is that this is a matter for the secretary of state, whose job it is to protect Americans and American interests abroad.

Yet, given this political pressure to do something, there was no announcement regarding Bill Clinton's mission, in fact the State Department was following their rules and Secretary Clinton was not involved. Bill Clinton left Haiti with all 10 Baptists still in jail. The day after the State Deparment said it was leaving to the Haitian courts, this was the type of press coverage http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/10/world/americas/10prisoners.html

“Help us,” one of the detainees, Carla Thompson, said in a jailhouse interview Monday as she lay on a bed in a scorching 8-by-5 foot jail cell, her ankles bandaged from infected mosquito bites. “That’s the message I would give to Mr. Obama and the State Department. Start helping us.”

Sitting on a dirty concrete floor, another detainee, Corinna Lankford, nodded in agreement, a frustrated look on her face.

“I have faith in God,” Ms. Lankford said. “But maybe the U.S. government could help a little more too.”

The 8 Baptists who were free in February were freed by a Haitian Judge and he did so after he interviewed the parents of the children who testified the children were not kidnapped but were freely given up to Silsby group. It was a Haitian process. My guess is that is the same reason she was not charged with child trafficking as she had the parents permission (even though she was deceptive). I also think Haiti wanted her out of the country.

When you can't argue the facts, argue against the person.

interesting how this subject goes up his ass. me thinks AWS has dirty haiti trafficking paws. (among other connections).

Yes, I believe that Shani M. King is completely wrong here. First of all, she doesn't work at Havard. Her paper makes clear she is an Associate Professor of Law University of Florida's Levin College of Law or the 41st best Law School in the country. https://www.usnews.com/best-graduate-schools/top-law-schools/law-rankings/page+2

And it's clear that King did not do original research on Clinton in Haiti, because that is not the point of her paper. You should follow her footnotes and find the original sources. She relies on a single news story.

She also makes a factual claim that is not at all supported by her footnotes. She claimed that Bill Clinton was negotiating with Haiti for a month. She claims this AP news report backs her claim, but it doesn't mention Clinton whatsoever. http://www.cleveland.com/world/index.ssf/2010/03/haiti_frees_1_us_missionary_bu.html

In reality, Clinton left Haiti after a few days and in fact was hospitalized in NYC during that time. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/bill-clinton-hospitalized-in-new-york-city/

The original news report is wrong and here's why I believe that.

1. It's based on a single report in the UK press https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/clinton-brokers-deal-over-haiti-orphan-abductions-v63ld395r7b

2. No other news reports have this. The UK press didn't claim this is a secret effort on behalf of Bill Clinton. An actual diplomatic intervention would have been reported by multiple sites if it actually happened. Haitian newspapers would have been all over this. The international press would be all over this.

3. The paper that reported it never followed up on it at all. So the original report had no confirmation and zero follow through.

4. The Clinton quotes they used were reported by other outlets 2 days before. Clinton openly spoke to reporters about what the US and Haitian governments should do. He never claimed anything first hand or that he was working on a deal and not a single other source claimed he was intervening in any way. In fact, in CNN's report on it, Bill Clinton doesn't even appear until 22 paragraphs in. http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/02/05/haiti.arrests/index.html

5. There was no press conference about having a reached a deal. Again this was not reported to be a secret deal.

6. Bill Clinton left Haiti with all the Baptists were in jail.

7. The Obama adminstration and the State Department were being criticized in the conservative press and by Baptist leaders FOR NOT INTERVENING. https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/feb/08/free-the-baptist-10-in-haiti/

8. Even with this the State Department went out of its way to say it was not intervening and Secretary Clinton would not be getting involved at all.

9. At the time, no other media even did a story following up on the The Times's report. This happens all the time when papers confirm another a paper's reporting. They do not do a followup story when their sources cannot confirm this. And reporters from around the world were on this story for months.

10. Nothing in the 7 plus years since the Haitian earthquake suggests this was true and the Clintons, of course came under intense scrutiny during this time. Haiti's AP reporter who worked this story stayed in Haiti for years writing a book and never had anything on this.

In short, there's nothing at all to suggest the Times got their story right. And there's a lot to suggest they got their story wrong, including the fact that they never even followed up on their story. The writer of the Paper relied on them and did not do original research/reporting into this.