We're also talking about what they were talking about at the time, which includes who specifically to shoot missiles at from a drone. People with names like Obama say people with names like al-Awlaki, among others. People with names like Clinton say people with names like Assange, among others. I get the name Assange from the allegations of State Department employees.
Mainstream also means collusion with Democrats. Want me to link the several hundred correspondence between reporters and various DNC/HRC campaign staff that have been leaked in the last couple weeks? Or do you actually believe that's a real thing even though it's not heavily reported on?
My source is too small for you. Your sources are too guilty of collusion for me. I'm not going to wait for Amazon's clickbait/advertorial farm to tell me something is true or not. Think it's a coincidence that WaPo has won almost nothing since Bezos took over? Not all journalism is created equal indeed.
Your source is fake. Your source is so fake that not even known alt-right bastions are willing to risk their names on it. When it appears in Breitbart, we'll talk.
your question gets an answer when you answer mine. write your whole thought out at once, learn to proofread. i'm not going to f5 for an hour so you can get your whole thought out.
i'll place trust in wikileaks over the obama administration, clinton campaign, and washington post any day. this conversation is over, have a shitty day.
> I get the name Assange from the allegations of State Department employees.
You get the name Assange from the allegations of a previously-unknown and untrusted conservative blog which does nothing of substance other than regularly attack Clinton. Forget FOX News - even Drudge Report refuses to touch this, and that is very telling.
Not all journalism is created equal, and it is nothing short of gullible to take such thinly-vetted sources on faith.
Most of these stories are about the fact that WikiLeaks retweeted True Pundit. Importantly, none of them are talking to the source. Were I the source, I would take these articles for what they are - invitations to give my message a broader and more legitimate reach.
Unless, of course, I am also the author of True Pundit and I know they will see through me before I even get an interview.
it's cute watching you continually edit your posts. why do you think "it's fake" is the only logical conclusion to someone not stepping forward as the source of the leak from within the state dept?
surely it's not because they fear a response from "the most transparent administration in history" who just so happens to have prosecuted more people under the espionage act than all other presidents combined. or how people like seth rich ended up.
Why do you think "it's real" is the only logical conclusion to a quote appearing in a right-wing hit blog and nowhere else?
It is a weighty accusation which should be taken with healthy skepticism rather than on faith. In the absence of any sort of journalistic integrity behind the outlet, I'm more inclined to believe it's a play for clicks and outrage.
We're also talking about what they were talking about at the time, which includes who specifically to shoot missiles at from a drone. People with names like Obama say people with names like al-Awlaki, among others. People with names like Clinton say people with names like Assange, among others. I get the name Assange from the allegations of State Department employees.
Mainstream also means collusion with Democrats. Want me to link the several hundred correspondence between reporters and various DNC/HRC campaign staff that have been leaked in the last couple weeks? Or do you actually believe that's a real thing even though it's not heavily reported on?