Results 1 to 4 of 4

Thread: Dossier Architects Claimed They Wanted To Protect Identity Of Sources.They Failed.

  1. #1 | Top
    Join Date
    Apr 2019
    Posts
    3,018
    Thanks
    1,514
    Thanked 2,446 Times in 1,597 Posts
    Groans
    93
    Groaned 100 Times in 99 Posts

    Default Dossier Architects Claimed They Wanted To Protect Identity Of Sources.They Failed.

    Now we know where all the Fake News/Lying Left Wet Dreams LIES were originated...a FULLACRAP Belarus native, they claimed they "could not reveal because of danger to him"..,

    "DANGER" from WHOM? THE HILLARY CAMPAIGN?????!!!!

    Lying LIARS busted again; meanwhile STEELE REFUSES TO COOPERATE WITH THE DURHAM PROBE.


    Yeah...we SEE WHO IS HIDING THE TRUTH FROM COMING OUT, DON'T WE?






    Dossier Architects Claimed They Wanted To Protect Identity Of Sources. One Was Unmasked Anyway




    The architects of the Steele dossier have claimed that protecting the identity of one of the documentís main sources was a major concern.
    ēDespite that, a Belarus-born businessman was identified in the press as the source for some of the dossierís most salacious allegations about President Donald Trump and the campaign.
    ēA review of press reports and government documents shows Christopher Steele and Glenn Simpson identified the alleged source, Sergei Millian, to journalists and government officials.


    https://dailycaller.com/2019/05/27/s...m_medium=email
    De Oppresso Liber

  2. The Following User Says Thank You to Grokmaster For This Post:

    Stretch (05-28-2019)

  3. #2 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    3,845
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 1,597 Times in 1,209 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 96 Times in 94 Posts

    Default

    I'm on the fence with protection of sources for the media.

    In the one hand it certainly empowers people to come forward who otherwise would not. On the other hand it allows journalists the ability to make up sources and thus their stories.

    IMO, I think in order have a balance, perhaps we should allow the or a judge privately review the source material. This happens all the time in business law and IP law. One party does not want to publicly expose certain information, so the judge reviews it in private.

    Is that perhaps a viable option with sources?

  4. #3 | Top
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Posts
    13,722
    Thanks
    1,274
    Thanked 3,114 Times in 2,424 Posts
    Groans
    126
    Groaned 775 Times in 724 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Yurt View Post
    I'm on the fence with protection of sources for the media.

    In the one hand it certainly empowers people to come forward who otherwise would not. On the other hand it allows journalists the ability to make up sources and thus their stories.

    IMO, I think in order have a balance, perhaps we should allow the or a judge privately review the source material. This happens all the time in business law and IP law. One party does not want to publicly expose certain information, so the judge reviews it in private.

    Is that perhaps a viable option with sources?
    honestly for regular stuff im fine with that but this whole collusion thing has been in the national news for 2 years. Im for unredacting everything , mueller report as well if anyone cares, and letting the chips fall where they may.
    is on twitter @realtsuke

    https://tsukesthoughts.wordpress.com/

  5. The Following User Says Thank You to tsuke For This Post:

    Grokmaster (05-28-2019)

  6. #4 | Top
    Join Date
    Apr 2019
    Posts
    3,018
    Thanks
    1,514
    Thanked 2,446 Times in 1,597 Posts
    Groans
    93
    Groaned 100 Times in 99 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Yurt View Post
    I'm on the fence with protection of sources for the media.

    In the one hand it certainly empowers people to come forward who otherwise would not. On the other hand it allows journalists the ability to make up sources and thus their stories.

    IMO, I think in order have a balance, perhaps we should allow the or a judge privately review the source material. This happens all the time in business law and IP law. One party does not want to publicly expose certain information, so the judge reviews it in private.

    Is that perhaps a viable option with sources?
    The above mentioned CLOWN was no "intel asset"; he was a gossipy BULLSHITTER, in danger from NO ONE, who got UNMASKED by the same people who declared he could not be revealed..."because of the danger"...when it was STEELE WHO UNMASKED HIM TO THE MEDIA....


    MORE LIES at the start of the Witch Hunt exposed....
    De Oppresso Liber

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 22
    Last Post: 05-27-2019, 11:22 AM
  2. APP - Information Sources
    By midcan5 in forum Above Plain Politics Forum
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 05-10-2019, 05:18 AM
  3. Anonymous sources
    By Never forget Christchurch in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 07-01-2017, 10:35 AM
  4. British firm failed to protect Americans in Benghazi
    By Guns Guns Guns in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 10-17-2012, 05:47 PM
  5. Two Political Architects that has some success for a while.
    By Socrtease in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 33
    Last Post: 02-07-2008, 12:16 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Rules

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •