Quote:
Originally Posted by whell
His words: "Americans should exercise caution before accepting as true any stories attributed to anonymous ‘officials,' particularly when they do not identify the country — let alone the branch or agency of government — with which the alleged sources supposedly are affiliated," Rosenstein said in a statement that was being circulated on social media."
When you apply this guidance to the sourcing used in the WaPo story, the WaPo story should not be "accepted as true". The story is, therefore, and in summary, BS.
|
That's quite a stretch. Rosenstein's statement was a global statement about anonymously-sourced stories, not a statement aimed at any specific WashPost story. BTW, Trump fired Flynn based upon a anonymously-sourced story by David Ignatius (not to mention Nixon resigning based upon anonymously-sourced Post stories).
Trump knows how reliable the Post's political reporting is. The Post seems to have better sources in the Trump administration than Trump does (not that he reads anything or listens to anyone). In fact, back when Trump listed the sources of what he called "fake news," he conspicuously left the Post off his list. There's a reason the Post has nearly 50 Pulitzer Prizes for Journalism. The Post is the polar opposite of fake news.
I would believe any anonymously-sourced WashPost story before I'd believe anything said by your Dear Leader, a guy who has averaged more than 4 lies a day since he became President (and is a fan of InfoWars, NewsMax, Breitbart and the National Enquirer - all purveyors of fake news). Not one single Post story has been successfully refuted by Trump or his minions in the same time frame. Score
669-0 in favor of the Post.
It's an absolute slam dunk in terms of their relative credibility. As soon as you understand that, the better off you will be. Until then, you look like a gullible idiot and a shill.