Anonymous sources

How absurd is it to hold it against someone for being an anonymous source on something related to the most powerful man in the world? Who's extremely petty and vindictive. Obviously anyone who said anything openly would be retaliated against, that's why they have to remain anonymous. Yet this is used as evidence for his innocence? No one sees the circular self-justifying logic here?
 
Cons wanted a CEO president, well guess what, large companies have these things called HR departments that handle interpersonal issues anonymously to avoid retaliation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top