Might… might… might…. might….
KEK
>20074395
>rrn without naming her source
Like RRN have ever named a credible sauce.
Chek't
>20074469
The comment was about sauce - show the sauce in their article (if you can…).
So it appears RRN ran with a Russian claim.
https://www.reuters.com/world/russia-demands-us-explain-biological-programme-ukraine-2022-03-09/
And you appear to show that they also ran a story based on a PDJT Truth post. Did they name PDJT as sauce in their article on that?
>so… does that settle that? (The RRN debate)
They got a couple of hits - to be fair you're onto a winner if you run a story based on a PDJT statement - he's not usually wrong…
Those are after the fact confirmations - now do the other hundreds of unsauced articles they've ran…
> valid content way before MSM ack's it,
>So it appears RRN ran with a Russian claim.
>
>https://www.reuters.com/world/russia-demands-us-explain-biological-programme-ukraine-2022-03-09/
Ask them, they are the MSM….
Conflate away - they ran a story based on Russian claims (which, yes turned out ot be true) Now do the other nhundreds of sauceless articles.
https://www.givesendgo.com/realrawnews2
Pic's won't post alongside a YT embed, anon.
International waters…(yes there's a caveat, but seldom applied)
>>>20074576 (You)
>>RRN noms
Just to be clear, for the record - that wasn't a nom in the slightest, that was highlighting the grift of RRN.
>20075134