https://innojairja.blogspot.com/2017/02/galojanil-oli-oigus-ilves-ongi.html This is a blog post on “Inno ja Irja kohvik” dated 3 Feb 2017, headlined (in effect) “Galojanil oli õigus? Ilves ongi maniakaalne krediitkaardikasutaja” — i.e., “Was Galojan right? Ilves really is a maniacal credit-card user.” It reacts to (and visually embeds) material about President Toomas Hendrik Ilves’s office/state credit-card spending, and argues that later reporting/coverage vindicates what Galojan had been alleging for years about elite perks and financial behaviour in the political establishment. The post leans heavily on derisive language and moral condemnation, using the Ilves credit-card story as a broader “see, this is how they are” proof-point, and it invites readers to connect Galojan’s earlier claims with a new scandal narrative around the presidency. Why it matters to her story: it’s relevant mainly as an example of secondary amplification — a later-era polemical outlet explicitly saying “Galojan was right” and using the Ilves credit-card controversy to reinforce the theme that insiders play by different rules. It’s useful in the Source Library as evidence of how her claims continued to circulate and re-surface when new scandals broke, and how Ilves became a symbolic figure in the “protected elite vs scapegoat” framing. But it’s not a neutral record: it’s best used as “this commentator/outlet argued X in 2017” rather than as a factual authority on what actually happened. In plain terms, the five comments do three things: Reassert the stigma against Galojan (one commenter calls her an “Estonian thief” in a sarcastic tone), while adding: she can say whatever she wants as long as she can prove it. Argue about double standards and entitlement: one commenter says it shouldn’t matter who someone is — the public has the right to ask questions and demand answers, not only people “close to” the president. Spin out into wider “elite corruption” talk: references to Estonia’s broader corruption scandals and political narratives (including mentions of Martin Helme/EKRE and older controversies like VEB/Ärmā/residence-permit style themes), with the basic implication that Ilves/establishment privilege predated the specific credit-card story. Focus on the mechanism: commenters argue over whether the card was in Ilves’s name, who authorised spending, and the idea that the public ends up paying for perks — i.e., a “taxpayer money” grievance. Overall mood: combative, moralising, and partisan — useful as evidence of how the topic is discussed, not as a reliable fact source on its own.