>>11001321 (/lb)
"Earlier Friday, it emerged that Attorney General William Barr had been warning Republicans that a review of the FBI’s Russia probe would not be finalized until after the Nov. 3 election."
This is the part I don't believe.
Axios' 'reporting' was an UNNAMED 'WHITE HOUSE OFFICIAL' AND A 'CONGRESSIONAL AIDE BRIEF ON THE MATTER'.
You need to READ ALL OF THE ARTICLE BEFORE SPEAKING.
LOOK AT THE LAST SENTENCE IN THE NYPOST ARTICLE Q POSTED.
"Don't believe EVERYTHING" you read does NOT mean "DON'T BELIEVE ANYTHING IN THIS ARTICLE IS TRUE"
Why do you blindly believe Axios is writing the truth?
The very last sentence in the NYPost article:
"Earlier Friday, it emerged that Attorney General William Barr had been warning Republicans that a review of the FBI’s Russia probe would not be finalized until after the Nov. 3 election."
Source: Adios. Axios' source: Unnamed "WH official" and "Congressional aide".
Typo: Adios should read Axios. I'm not on the move.
The very last sentence in the NYPost article:
"Earlier Friday, it emerged that Attorney General William Barr had been warning Republicans that a review of the FBI’s Russia probe would not be finalized until after the Nov. 3 election."
Source: Axios. Axios' source: Unnamed "WH official" and "Congressional aide".
Not buying it unless they NAME the source(s).
Oh it has EVERYTHING to do with fake news narratives that push falsehoods and 'sources familiar with the matter' and 'senior white house officials have told us that…'.
Nice try moron.
https://www.axios.com/barr-durham-report-election-3c02ec6a-7613-4083-b35c-4844de6da16b.html
"Attorney General Bill Barr has begun telling top Republicans that the Justice Department’s sweeping review into the origins of the Russia investigation will not be released before the election, a senior White House official and a congressional aide briefed on the conversations tell Axios."
No names, no 'on the record' statements. It's the same old same old UNNAMED 'senior WH official' and 'Congressional aide briefed on the conversations.'
I believe this is what Q was referring to with "Don't believe everything you read".
This is just the 21st century political version of Pascal's wager.
Look, I am not in the business of 'disproving' anyone's beliefs, but rather, I ask and expect beliefs presented as 'fact' to be SOURCED, and not something like 'this is what I believe because I can't tolerate what it would psychologically feel like to be wrong if I believed the opposite.'
That's fucking weaksauce brah!
Have some fucking courage instead of just believing that which minimizes your ego being crushed.
Crush that fucking ego with truth based on logic and evidence, even if it means you made a mistake that IF you're wrong will fucking sting.
Ya got me?