Talk:John Ratcliffe (American politician)

Footnoted ‘facts’
The intro states: “Ratcliffe made public assertions that contradicted the intelligence community's own assessments,” …. Then gives footnote 16. This is stated as a fact in the into yet the footnote references an Opinion piece in the New York Times. I selected that link to read the article to see if this was fact or allegation or opinion but I could not read the article without paying for a subscription. So two issues. First there is a question about the correctness of this statement of fact, and second why have footnotes that cannot be followed up on….and, I guess, third does Wikipedia at least get a commission if I do subscribe to the New York Times? SteveLew1948 (talk) 16:06, 11 December 2022 (UTC)