Hey Anons, I've been bothered by something since the Sarah Sanders press conference where the topic of Q was raised…

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V6Zi8Ti_Oeo

(Skip to 18:30 for the [Q]uestion)

David (I'm not sure which reporter that is or what affiliation he's representing in the press pool) asked whether the President "supports these people who showed up in these 'QAnon'/'Blacks for Trump' fringe groups. . ."

David asked 'A' question, he didn't ask 'THE' question…

What baffled me though was her response.

Sarah went on a weird tangent about the responsibility of the press, and I understood that element and took it at face value; what interests me though was when she mentions a 1998 case where, I'll say allegedly, a press member leaked the private phone number of Osama Bin Laden's private cell phone number, which reportedly caused a loss of intelligence in regards to their ability to effectively track him back then.

So I went digging, as I want too familiar with the case, the first article I found was from 2005 from the Washington Post:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/2005/12/22/file-the-bin-laden-phone-leak-under-urban-myths/20c31cf7-3377-495d-8af2-b029bdb7c268/?utm_term=.94151d48a755

The article goes on to explain that, and this was apparently claimed by President Bush (Jr) in 2005, but he made the claim, or at least raised the issue again.

I guess what I'm saying is, does this warrant further investigation by us? This was such a specific answer for Sarah to give to the question, and it really came out of left-center field when the topic of Q came up.

Also, CNN followed up with an article in direct response to Sarah's mentioning of the Osama cell phone leak that basically was just a lot of pissing and moaning about being heckled at the rally.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/08/01/politics/sara-sanders-journalists-leak-osama-bin-laden/index.html

In fact, no where in their article do they even mention QAnon.

Also, sorry for not archiving, I just wanted to make sure and go this topic posted while it was still fresh in my mind.

>>2403121

I don't mean to argue semantics, my wording may have been off, just that it was such a specific calculated answer, clearly she was ready to respond to this, but she completely skirted the discussion of Q to focus on this specific topic of Osama Bin Laden's phone leak back in 1998.

If the argument being made was in regards to the media's mishandling of mission critical information, why THIS case? The MSM lies all the time, it just seemed like an odd choice to pick this specific event that happened so long ago.