It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss private communications with the president
a former senior intelligence official said of
originally posted by: marg6043
a reply to: dfnj2015
Making people question what they think or believe is how the tabloids news that are feeding on leaked news from unnamed sources keep the people hook and their ratings high.
Like I say if the news are just miss interpretations of facts to create outrageous news at the end if they are truly fake nobody will care.
That is my point and the fake news media feeders will sail free.
originally posted by: xuenchen
who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss private communications with the president
a former senior intelligence official said of
originally posted by: kelbtalfenek
originally posted by: jjkenobi
From the article:
"who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss private communications with the president."
Depends if you believe the anonymous sources. My opinion is this will end up the same place all the other anonymous zero proof anti Trump stories have went for the last 5 months - nowhere.
I'm sure at some point the same was said about the infamous "Deep Throat" anonymous source...
We will see where this leads, and hopefully see where the trail ends.
originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: dfnj2015
I think it's going to take some time before we have confirmation one way or the other that evidence exists. It's so early into the investigations. I hope we keep talking about them as they develop, no matter how much people around here scream.
originally posted by: olaru12
Even the Trump WH uses anonymous sources and fake news. Imagine that.
www.rawstory.com...
originally posted by: AboveBoard
a reply to: dfnj2015
Here's the thing about sources...many "whistleblowers" or "sources" wish to remain anonymous. Just like people dumping documents to Wikileaks like to remain anonymous, and Assange won't give their names up.
If the journalist knows who they are, and they trust the information being given to them, they share the story. If the source later proves to be false, then the journalist's own reputation is on the line as well!
"Sources" are being ridiculed now by those who don't like the story, is what I mostly am seeing here. "Oh, it's unnamed sources. Fake news...yawn..." is a very easy way out from information people don't want to hear.
So believe it or don't believe it. The journalist who is putting out the article is betting their reputation on the accuracy of their information, or they are lying.
It is understandable that if you don't like the news, you might think "oh they are just making it up" but remember, the journalist's credibility and the sources's credibility are on the line. If they risk that enough times for false information, they will no longer be journalists, kind of like KellyAnne Conway is no longer considered credible by most news organizations, because she was no longer trustworthy.
I tend to think this is the truth and it will be borne out, but until we are deeper into the investigation, it cannot be 100% confirmed at this time.
- AB
The other issue is that President Trump himself has 0 credibility. Why wouldn't the populace be swayed toward believing something negative towards President Trump prior to investigations concluding? The man isn't taken seriously by the majority, and that's on him. He would be given the benefit of the doubt in court (and should), but in the court of public opinion he's positioned himself to be guilty before proven innocent on almost any charge levied his way.
originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: dfnj2015
Just the fact that you need to ask that question -- that we all need to ask that question -- is the worst part of this whole debacle.
The most fundamental question that needs to be asked and answered is why the hell haven't we seen this evidence of collusion if it exists???
But speaking directly to these new anonymous claims, if there is no evidence of collusion and the "investigation" really is just a witch hunt or worse just a phony investigation to give the illusion of misdeeds, then Trump was totally justified in trying to have the appropriate parties tell the public exactly that. Which is exactly what many Democrats have already said publicly and on the record.
If there is evidence, then the public needs to know what that evidence is, and has every right to know.
Everyone involved needs to put up or shut up and let the chips fall where they may.
originally posted by: dfnj2015
a reply to: DAVID64
So you think it's fake news?
originally posted by: DAVID64
Well first, it's WaPo, so........
"who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss private communications with the president."
Don't they all
a former senior intelligence official
Who? Why is every god**mn story from an "unnamed source"? A "former" this or "high ranking" that ? If he's a "former official, how does he know? Or is this a case of " I heard it from a friend of a friend of a friend ....."
If they actually had something, the Democrats would be shouting it from the rooftops.