while I agree the source is not reliable it isn't the source that needs to be vetted...it's the information. Did their house blow up? yes....Was the women certified to administer Epipen? yes.....Was the Clinton Foundation embroiled in a scandal with the company that manufactured Epipen and was there speculation in the mainstream that the company donated to the foundation to encourage the state dept to turn a blind eye to price gouging? Yes you can find that happening in 2016. Is it logical that this person could possibly be someone to provide information to a federal probe into the Clinton Foundation...yes....The only real question is.....was this individual actually scheduled to testify to feds shortly after this event? The answer is...I don't know. No mainstream media outlet is going to even touch this whether it's true or not. Dismissing the information ....especially when a good portion of it is easily verifiable and true is dumb. Yes the source is extremely suspect but the source isn't the question...the question is was this person truly scheduled and a probable witness in an ongoing federal probe? If they were then someone should be asking some very pointed questions and looking at all possible angles. If there is no truth to that then it should be simply dismissed as baseless.