Ben and Alexham make good points over at RedState. I will completely agree that, just from a cursory look at their web page, the Arkansas Leader does appear not only to be a "shoddy little publication," but also to feature as their primary (if not exclusive) form of content hit pieces against Huck.
Pardons are indeed the real, legitimate concern, not necessarily paroles; my apologies for not drawing that distinction during the original post. However, I do stand by my previous position that issues such as this provoke such strong, visceral reactions that facts may be next to useless in dealing with them. Remember, as the Left has taught us for several years now, it is often the "seriousness of the charge" that is brought forward as reason for a person or campaign to be on the defensive (or to be destroyed outright), rather than the accuracy of any such charges. I think that these stories will hurt Huck regardless of their accuracy (though the parts that are accurate will combine with those that may not be to show the appearance of what may not be as large a trend as it seems -- a very bad situation altogether).