No I think it's more likely a reporter is so convinced of his source's veracity, he WILL put himself on the line, however naive such an idea is.
It's not as though whole NATIONS have done things based on extremely flimsy evidence.
I wouldn't agree anything is more or less likely given the #### that's come from both government and media. While it's quite possible the reporter is going after Trump, who continually villifies his employer, I disagree that it's the "more likely" scenario.
The author of the story
may be wanting to get his name out there, as he's fairly young, but he's also broken a few stories such as the 100 baseball players tested positive for PEDs in 2003. He also broke the story about the 2005 Haditha Massacre . He also broke the story on Clinton's personal e-mail account.
This is the same reporter who was lambasted by the left for covering Clinton's email story, claiming he was "unfair".
Another, more relevant piece he did was on the vetting process of San Bernadino shooter Malik. Schmidt's (the author) article cited anonymous government sources and claimed that the shooter "talked openly on social media about her views on violent jihad", but in reality Malik said those things in private, not on her Facebook.
In fact, that same story was cited by GURPS in the San Bernadino thread.
http://forums.somd.com/threads/305441-Mass-Shooting-in-California?p=5599562&viewfull=1#post5599562
We pretty much do, yes. There has not been one shred of meat found on those bones and senior intelligence people have already said as much. There have been zero leaks with any meat either. Even the "Russians hacked the DNC story" looks bogus on it's face. Somebody might have..but the Russians would never have left a trail.
Hillary and her minions got that "The Russians!!" ball rolling immediately after their unexpected loss, and rightly counted on the aggressive assistance from their mainstream media arm.
No, we "pretty much" don't. We have about as much info for the allegations as we don't. No one can claim that it's a fake story since those in charge of oversight haven't even seen anything yet.
Is it fake? Maybe. But it's a bit premature to say it is at this point. Just as much as it is to say the story is true and Trump should be impeached.
Yes, the media plays a roll in it, but this is the same media that villified Trump throughout the primaries and he still became President.
The reporter----Like Chris---believes what he wants to hear.
Do you have some sort of mental issue? That's a real question. You spout off these random things that have no bearing on the conversation, completely misrepresent anything anyone who you disagree with says, and seem to have little to no basic knowledge on world events, workings of govt., nor respect in general.
I've never, ever, had anything bad to say about you, nor anyone else on here outside of friendly banter. I'm curious why you faithfully ignore things placed in front you in order to act like a dick. Do you really take this internet forum thing
that seriously?
Maybe he didn't think it would come to all this. Reporters fabricate crap all the time, we know this because they get busted for it.
Oh sure he did. He runs a bombshell story about the President of the United States obstructing the head of the FBI from investigating Flynn and his ties to Russia and he expects it to fall to the Metro section of the newspaper?
