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

[Grokmaster]

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 document’s main sources was a major concern.
•Despite that, a Belarus-born businessman was identified in the press as the source for some of the dossier’s most salacious allegations about President Donald Trump and the campaign.
•A 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

[Yurt]

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?

[tsuke]

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.

[Grokmaster]

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....